Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddison Hall

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. No delete !votes address why notability is not established. As pointed out, WP:BLP1E and WP:1E do not apply if coverage exists for multiple separate events and "not tabloid" or "no claim for notability" are not valid rationales for deletion in itself. So Why 19:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maddison Hall

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

BLP of a criminal known only for committing a criminal act, and then having a sex change in prison, which no one would otherwise care about. There's definitely some sources available, but nothing indicating wider notability outside their criminal background. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of sources about this woman & I added them to the article. Not all the sources have to do with the conviction or the sex change. She has been in the news significantly over time. However, I'm not 100% comfortable dealing with criminal bios, so I'm going to just state that it seems likely this will pass GNG. Pinging Funcrunch for a better perspective. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. Megalibrarygirl you have a right to vote if you feel GNG is met. Flat Out (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Flat Out. I will. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to meet GNG. Not sure what "which no one would otherwise care about" refers to in Timothyjosephwood's comment; many people have strong feelings (positive and negative) about trans prisoners getting access to gender-related surgery. I'm concerned that Megalibrarygirl pinging me specifically might appear to be canvassing however, so I'm reluctant to cast a Keep !vote. Funcrunch (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Funcrunch! I just wanted another set of eyes who was familiar with these issues. I think it may have been better to post on WP:LGBT, now that I think about it, but I work with you a lot, so I thought of you. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Thanks, I was going to suggest LGBT Studies and/or Women in Red. Funcrunch (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funcrunch would you consider voting now that additional sources have been added? Flat Out (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flat Out: Sourcing wasn't the issue for me; as I said, my concern was the appearance of canvassing. Funcrunch (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article needs improvement, details of the horrific murder committed by Noel Crompton belong in a separate, substantial section. Keep on the basis of coverage by national media over many years and a series of issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing how this passes WP:1E: a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person. From what I can tell, the subject murdered someone and made the news, and then made the news as a person who murdered someone who had a sex change... who... would otherwise just be a person who had a sex change and of no other particular note. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood, the reasons why a person is of interest to the general public aren't for us to evaluate. We only need to check and see if the sources are there for passing GNG or ANYBIO, not the "reasons" they were written about. For example, Kim Kardashian appears to be famous for no reason I can understand, but she's clearly notable. Also, this isn't a single event, as you showed above: 1) the murder, 2) the sex change and I'll add 3) the various lawsuits, 4) parole. All coverage of different topics surrounding this woman's life. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood I think if you take another look you will see they meet the standard, not because of the murder, but because of the coverage relating to transitioning in prison, the issues of trans females being places in male prisons, delayed parole due to gender identity issues, the state paying for gender reassignment, parliamentary debate etc. Flat Out (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete there's no claim for notability. None of the press coverage justifies notability. This falls under WP:BLP, and the coverage is simply the regular proceedings of the legal system. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with coverage of convictions, issues facing the subject as a trans person in a male prison, suing Corrections dept. They may be trashy reasons for coverage but its there nonetheless. Ticks the box for significant coverage, reliable and independent sources. I don't agree that WP:1E applies since the media was as much about trans issues and prisoners, allocation of funds to prisoners to support their transition etc. Also the media coverage has endured right up to 2016. Flat Out (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - additional sources supplied. Flat Out (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:1E doesn't apply here. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Power~enwiki I'm curious as to how you think GNG is not met now additional sources have been added? Flat Out (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not claiming that GNG isn't met. I'm claiming that BLP suggests the article should be deleted; there's no case for meeting WP:PERP here. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meeting GNG is enough WP:SIGCOV. Flat Out (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe you're correct. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Failing specific rules, such as WP:PERP can delete articles that otherwise meet GNG for low-profile individuals. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you agree that WP:1E doesn't apply, and you focus on the broader coverage (WP:BASIC) not just the initial conviction, you might consider that WP:PERP is the wrong standard to apply in this case. Flat Out (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2017 (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.