Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Conte
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Man In Black (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 14 June 2009 (→Joanne Conte: closed, no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:29, 14 June 2009 by A Man In Black (talk | contribs) (→Joanne Conte: closed, no consensus)
- 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 No consensus . This is a typical "The sources are sufficient" "No they aren't" disagreement of fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joanne Conte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I'm not seeing Notability here from the usual means. Yes it has some ironic or otherwise unusual facts, but nothing inherently encyclopedic. MBisanz talk 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article is based on multiple third-party reliable sources (satisfying WP:V and WP:RS) contains no original research (satisfying WP:NOR) and is neutral (satisfying WP:N). It meets every requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, and certainly one of (if not the first?) transgendered politicians in the United States is notable even in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen The first reference shows nothing relevant in my browser (it's the only reference where there is a claim of notability). Minor politicians do not become notable until reliable, independent sources discuss them. None of the refs show any discussion to indicate notability. The fact that sex is part of the article makes it exciting, but sex is no longer a big deal unless it is widely discussed in reliable, independent sources. The alleged refs are unhelpful (some establish minor facts, but I see none which indicate the subject is notable). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Point taken about the references, this was one of the first articles I worked on before I knew about tools like WebCite, and I originally used external links. I'm sure replacements or archived versions can be found. More importantly, I would strongly encourage you to read the Transgender article. Gender reassignment is not about "sex" and this article is also not about sex. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Scarpy (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I've corrected the references. WebCite, ironically, seems to be broken tonight, but I will get the articles archived later. While working on these I found four more five more sources that could be used to expand this article ([1][2][3][4][5]). If there were any doubts before, there is clearly enough reliable sources here for an encyclopedic article. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're still not convinced, you may want to have a look at the 134 articles returned from a Google News Archive search on "Joanne Conte" +Arvada. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I've corrected the references. WebCite, ironically, seems to be broken tonight, but I will get the articles archived later. While working on these I found four more five more sources that could be used to expand this article ([1][2][3][4][5]). If there were any doubts before, there is clearly enough reliable sources here for an encyclopedic article. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen. Seems to be a low level (and relatively unsuccessful) perennial candidate. And suing people for everything doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Conte v. Meyer was ruled on by the Colorado Supreme Court. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Anyone who "hits the national talk show" circuit, especially back in the 1970s about transsexuality topics is just about guaranteed to be notable. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 14 June 2009 (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.