Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacie Laughton

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. Which details should be included is a matter for the talk page, but after a fortnight, no one is advocating deletion. Courcelles 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Laughton

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

This is a bit of a tricky case where there are valid arguments on both sides, so I thought it best to bring it here for discussion and consensus rather than simply imposing anything arbitrarily. The situation is that she was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives last month, earning the distinction of becoming the first out transgender person ever elected to a state legislature in the United States — however, she had previously been convicted of a crime and faced some controversy due to conflicting interpretations of whether she had fulfilled the necessary discharge conditions to be eligible to run for election, and thus opted to resign the seat before actually taking office.
So the dilemma is this: while the distinction of being the first transgender person to win a state-level election in the US technically still holds regardless of whether she actually assumed the office or not afterward, it also presents potential WP:BLP problems (privacy, BLP1E, revealing a transgender person's prior name, etc.) for us to actually have a standalone article about her — we also, for instance, have the alternative of simply listing her name in relevant articles without linking to an independent article, thus avoiding content that would actually get into too much biographical detail about her.
I was the article's original creator, before the fit hit the shan, so I don't know what the right solution is here and won't express a preference — but there should be some discussion of whether we should keep or delete this nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May pass WP:POLITICIAN #1 as a former(?) member of a state legislature, and clearly passes #2. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some of the post fit-shanning work on the article and I think it clearly meets notability guidelines. Buck Winston (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to give some consideration to Ms. Laughton's privacy rights as well. Notability doesn't necessarily give us the right to ignore personal privacy issues like publishing her former name, or broadcasting her criminal record, on one of the most widely viewed websites in the entire world. Such issues can actually override the notability of a private citizen whose notability rests on a single event — there are cases when even if a person does technically meet notability rules, it can still be inappropriate for us to actually maintain an article about her. Although perhaps we could also retain the article while squelching some of the more sensitive biographical details (like her birth name or the specific details of her criminal conviction.) Bearcat (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's a public figure who stood for public office and the details of her arrest and conviction are matters of public record. She is clearly a notable figure and whether her former name or whatever other detail should or shouldn't be included is a question to be hashed out on her talk page, not in a deletion discussion. Buck Winston (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (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.