Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Snow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Snow[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Misty Snow (edit | 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 required for politicians or activists. ALPolitico (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's a major party nom for Senate. You sure? --108.33.71.212 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major party nominee for office does not mean that one meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Should Snow win or come close, then she may meet that threshold. However, as it stands, she does not. ALPolitico (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ALPolitico (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 to become a nominee for the United States Senate..." That is a valid claim for notability and her press coverage easily passes WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One event WP:BLP1E, candidates don't pass WP:POLITICIAN unless they pass WP:N so their involvement in politics is a moot point except for the fact that it is the reason they are being covered in the news. Which, coming full circle, is only because of one event.--Savonneux (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was also the first woman to own a stock brokerage, one of the firsts to own a newspaper, noted suffragist, testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on women's rights, and had a Broadway musical written about her. Compared to someone who is a candidate for office.--Savonneux (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for being the Democratic nominee for Senate in Utah in 2016. Add to that that she's the first openly transgender candidate nationwide for Senate. No matter how you slice it, her name will always be there when people look for the results of this Senate race AND for notable 'firsts' when it comes to transgender rights. I'd also add that the agenda of contributors such as Johnpacklambert is pretty transparent if you look at their page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.5.78 (talk)
  • Comment Further to the debate, 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) 12:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, notability is all that matters; if there is enough coverage, the subject is notable. Is there enough coverage? Well, there's The Huffington Post, The Nation, The Telegraph, The Deseret News, NPR, a brief mention in US News & World Report, and The Deseret News again. This is enough to prove evidence of notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she is notable for being the first transgender nominee of a major party for United States Senate.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Typically a major party nominee for US Senate would not be notable just for that, and there are nominees this year and every election year that do not and should not have articles. But because Snow is a historic first than that provides additional notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 19:49, 7 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misty_Snow&oldid=1143742703"