Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elected Transgender Officials Around The World

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 merge to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. Ultimately this is a matter of strength of argument: That this is a WP:CFORK of List of the first LGBT holders of political offices is a strong policy-based argument, and the "keep" opinions do not address it. What they should have done is argue, based on citing reliable sources, why the topic of all transgender officeholders (not just the first per office) is a separately notable list topic per WP:LISTN. Such arguments, however, were not made. Sandstein 13:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Transgender Officials Around The World[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. While I understand what the creator was trying to do here, it's a definite misfire in actual execution. For starters, this list doesn't just include people once: if they got reelected to a second or third term or to a different office, they get relisted a second or third or fourth time for each reelection rather than just once. And secondly, in order to pad the topic out as much as possible this is also including non-notable positions like non-profit-organizational boards of directors and internal political party committees and civil servants and constituency assistants and unsuccessful candidates, rather than restricting itself to actual political officeholders. (Tangential aside: how does somebody try this hard to shoehorn Jamie Lee Hamilton and Micheline Montreuil into the Canada list, yet somehow miss Estefania Cortes-Vargas?) Noteworthy firsts should certainly be included in List of the first LGBT holders of political offices, but there's not much encyclopedic basis for a mess like this to stand alone as a separate list topic. And even if it were to be kept, this would not be its correct title, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with all of your points above that this article has some pretty serious flaws, but I think it would be better to improve the article rather than deleting it outright. Changing the format to a table (something like that in List of elected and appointed female heads of state), and having strict, clear standards for inclusion would do a lot to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards. mineffle ^(talk) 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we need to maintain it as a standalone list, separate from List of the first LGBT holders of political offices? Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat. I am sympathetic to the issues involved as a gay man and a Trans* ally. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Valid encyclopedic list. The specifics of the execution are an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - That said, this is a clear fork. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a subject that would be too limited and diluted if pushed into an article of firsts even though many of these people are indeed firsts. Transgender elected officials are noteworthy for being openly trans in extremely anti-trans times, although some parts of the world are getting a bit better. I found this list fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:F47A:CA39:9FBE:B5A0 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.