- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Taking the delete !votes into account, the consensus to keep is still strong. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Misty Plowright
AfDs for this article:
- Misty Plowright ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual does not appear to meet notability requirements for a politician or for an activist. ALPolitico ( talk) 03:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ALPolitico ( talk) 13:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Her notability comes from being "...one of the first two openly transgender people in the United States, representing a major political party, to be a candidate for a national office...and...the first openly transgender candidate to win a major party primary for the US House of Representatives..." That is a valid claim for notability and her press coverage easily satisfies WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Snow. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The coverage she's garnered is enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, probably due to the LGBT rights aspect, which establishes notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The coverage is just one event, if Plowright does not win, there is no lasting notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Anna. Adequate coverage and unique accomplishment. Victoria Woodhull was also once a losing candidate too, but her run was groundbreaking. Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Victoria Woodhull's notability does not solely come from being a losing candidate for public office. ALPolitico ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Woodhull also authored many articles for the suffragist movement, was the first woman to own a stock brokerage (with her sister), ran a newspaper, and testified before the Congress of the United States. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- MY point is that losing candidates can sometimes be notable, particularly where the candidacy itself is groundbreaking. Montanabw (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nail on the head. That is why she is notable as a person even if she may not be notable as a politician per se. (Whether she wins or loses, she will always be the first in representing a major political party and being a candidate for a national office. Winning or losing will not change that.) It is the same as would be the first black judge or astronaut or brain surgeon. Not all of them may be notable per
WP:NOTABILITYFORTHATPROFESSION but with extensive press coverage because of their being a first, are easily notable under
WP:GNG, or in this case,
WP:BIO.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- So you are arguing they are notable based on the coverage caused by a single event.--
Savonneux (
talk)
11:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reading
WP:EVENT, you will see section
WP:LASTING. Being the first in a unique social group entering an extrdordinarily major group is lasting by any terms. And, that guideline's pertinent section reads "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..."
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The part you are quoting is about topics on actual events. If the article was First X nominated for X that would be the event, this is about the person. If you read further down that page it actually says People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.--
Savonneux (
talk)
12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Another editor above referred to "just one event". I am just trying to point out that even that guideline supports this article because the event "...is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." If you wish to move the article to First openly transgender candidate to win a major party primary for the US House of Representatives, then that is a matter for the article talk page.
- The part you are quoting is about topics on actual events. If the article was First X nominated for X that would be the event, this is about the person. If you read further down that page it actually says People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.--
Savonneux (
talk)
12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reading
WP:EVENT, you will see section
WP:LASTING. Being the first in a unique social group entering an extrdordinarily major group is lasting by any terms. And, that guideline's pertinent section reads "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..."
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- So you are arguing they are notable based on the coverage caused by a single event.--
Savonneux (
talk)
11:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, the article is about the candidate herself. We are talking about a person, widely covered in the media, who is notable for who she is, what she represents, her accomplishment, her campaign, the impact in the LGBT and political world and its obvious lasting effects, the precedent it sets. etc. And I think in the guideline you cite, the key word is "generally". We have to look at who this person is, what they have accomplished and what sort of media coverage they received. Plenty of Wikipedia's guidelines conflict with each other. We have nothing that says one guideline supersedes another and this subject obviously and easily passes
Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- This person has done nothing of note other than be a member of a demographic and be nominated for a political position. I'm not against putting them on a list of firsts or something similar. The fact they haven't done anything particularly unique (being nominated isn't unique) just waters down the inclusion criteria for BLPs which is already very open (seriously all you have to do is win an award for literally anything). I don't care one way or the other (which is why I didn't vote) but equality in application of policy is what separates an encyclopedia from a news service.--
Savonneux (
talk)
19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the end, notability is all that matters. Notability is determined by coverage. Thus, one should ask: does this person have coverage to meet notability? Well, let's ask
The Washington Post,
The Guardian,
The Colorado Independent,
The Times of London,
Democracy Now,
The Denver Channel, and
The Washington Post again. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Colonel Wilhelm Klink (
Complaints|
Mistakes)
19:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- That isn't the sole criteria or every news story would have an article. The question is does one event, by itself, warrant an article.--
Savonneux (
talk)
21:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- This, however, is not just any news story, as is shown by the evidence. How often do most news breaks stay in the mainstream press? Usually a few days or a week at most. Look at some of the dates for the articles cited: respectively, they are June 30, July 4, July 15, July 3, July 1, June 30, and July 31. That shows that Plowright's nomination has (at least so far) lasting significance; thirty days passed between stories of this event, something which rarely happens with WP:ROUTINE political nominations, or with any significant events at all. Additionally, look at the scope of the coverage; how often does a newspaper from Britain cover a senatorial primary election from Colorado? Not often; the fact that such coverage exists is another point towards notability, as it shows the unique (and significant) quality of this event compared to others of the same nature. To quote WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Your argument that "every news story would have an article" is illogical, as not every news story receives this much coverage over such a long (for news) period of time. Whether or not one event deserves an article should be judged on an individual basis. In this case, with all things taken into account, I'd have to go with "yes". Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- That isn't the sole criteria or every news story would have an article. The question is does one event, by itself, warrant an article.--
Savonneux (
talk)
21:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the end, notability is all that matters. Notability is determined by coverage. Thus, one should ask: does this person have coverage to meet notability? Well, let's ask
The Washington Post,
The Guardian,
The Colorado Independent,
The Times of London,
Democracy Now,
The Denver Channel, and
The Washington Post again. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Colonel Wilhelm Klink (
Complaints|
Mistakes)
19:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- This person has done nothing of note other than be a member of a demographic and be nominated for a political position. I'm not against putting them on a list of firsts or something similar. The fact they haven't done anything particularly unique (being nominated isn't unique) just waters down the inclusion criteria for BLPs which is already very open (seriously all you have to do is win an award for literally anything). I don't care one way or the other (which is why I didn't vote) but equality in application of policy is what separates an encyclopedia from a news service.--
Savonneux (
talk)
19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, the article is about the candidate herself. We are talking about a person, widely covered in the media, who is notable for who she is, what she represents, her accomplishment, her campaign, the impact in the LGBT and political world and its obvious lasting effects, the precedent it sets. etc. And I think in the guideline you cite, the key word is "generally". We have to look at who this person is, what they have accomplished and what sort of media coverage they received. Plenty of Wikipedia's guidelines conflict with each other. We have nothing that says one guideline supersedes another and this subject obviously and easily passes
Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Per all the above. VictoriaGrayson Talk 02:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, she is notable for being the first transgender nominee of a major party for United States House of Representatives.-- TommyBoy ( talk) 19:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.