Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa LePore

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa LePore[edit]

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

This BLP looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. I am sure a detailed article could be written about the 'butterfly ballot', and the creator would deserve a mention in it, but the summary at United States presidential election in Florida, 2000#Palm Beach County's butterfly ballots is sufficient. Also, my reading up about this indicates her party affiliation was drummed into an issue to suggest that she was doing it on purpose. There have been many bad ballot designs and election systems, esp bad electronic ballot systems, and many causes for the outcome of the fateful 2000 election results. Keep in mind that this ballot design had been used in a prior election, with similar results, without controversy, b) the proposed ballot was published in local newspapers prior to its use, and it was seen by the Democratic party[1][2] and b) the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ballot wasn't noncompliant.[3] (see also http://everything2.com/title/Fladell+v.+Palm+Beach+County+Canvassing+Board) The implementation of electronic voting machines in 2004 falls under 'doing her job'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Regretfully, but the sources in the article itself seem to indicate continuing public interest, to the extent of coverage of her subsequent decisions and life. The event in which she was involved was significant, and her role was nontrivial. Ray^Talk 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She makes it as notable. Sure there have been bad ballot designs before, but I can't recall another case where ballot design may have influenced the outcome of a presidential election! She got a ton of coverage at the time and has had coverage over other issues before and since. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in this case, there's reason why she's notable, per Melanie DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (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.