Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephe Koontz

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephe Koontz[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a smalltown municipal councillor, whose only claim to being more notable than the norm is that she was the first transgender person to win a contested election in her own state (but not the first transgender person to hold office at all in her state, because she was preceded by a trans woman who won a seat by running unopposed, and not the first transgender city councillor in the United States either.) Holders of not inherently notable offices are not handed an inclusion freebie just because they happen to be members of politically underrepresented groups, however -- if this had made her the first transgender officeholder in the entire country, then there would be a clear case for inclusion, but we do not split hairs like "first person to win a contested election rather than running unopposed", or "first city councillor in her own state as opposed to other states", to keep spinning off an endless profusion of more "historic firsts" beyond the big one. And the sourcing here isn't demonstrating that she got widespread press attention for this, either: there's a single piece of in-state coverage, and one source which verifies a tangential fact about the predecessor who won by running unopposed and is thus entirely orthogonal to establishing Koontz's notability. This is not even close to enough sourcing to make a smalltown municipal councillor notable regardless of her gender identity. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The sources I noted in my original nomination statement have been completely replaced with new ones — however, three of the new sources represent mere blurbs in listicles, two are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that are not otherwise about her, and the last is a blurb on the organizational blog of a political advocacy group. So they still do not represent substantive sources about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually reviewed this as part of NPP. Although politicians do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia based on a win, they do with significant coverage which I found plenty of (including this CNN feature). However, it does appear that someone with a COI (potential autobio) is editing the article which I left a message for on their talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Koontz received a fair amount of coverage nationally, as CNMall41 says. It does look like she may be adding some to her own page, and some of them are more helpful than others -- but the coverage was real and tended to refer to her win as "historic". Litlnemo (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Stephe Koontz lives in my city, so I've explained to her some things such as "don't edit your own wikipedia page" and "your photos have to have the correct license," etc. She is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works and is definitely finding the interface to be overwhelming (and can you blame her?) Litlnemo (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Making a distinction between someone who is and is not “out” is not splitting hairs in this circumstance. That distinction was also made with regard to two athletes in this year‘s winter Olympics. It is worth putting into perspective that the person who was elected unopposed was sued for fraud because it became known that she was transgender. She subsequently lost her reelection campaign. That lawsuit received coverage in the New York Times. She probably also should have a Wikipedia page. This all goes to emphasize the “Historic” Nature of her election. Theredproject (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Koontz is the first openly transgender person to win an election in Georgia. Michelle Bruce was not out when she was a city council person and was subsequently sued because of it. The distinction of being out versus not out is one that is used often and is not splitting hairs. She received national media attention for her win and it was always referred to as historic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekalbzombie (talk • contribs)

Keep Wpgbrown (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHer winning has been called historic by the national media. If that doesn't make her notable, when there are a ton of nobody state reps all wiki, I don't know what will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherwhea (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (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.