Talk:Beth Kerrigan

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Beth Kerrigan is a major figure in the movement to achieve gay marriage in America. See this New York Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/nyregion/connecticut/19gayct.html?_r=0 I am not at all adept at Wikipedia editing or anything of the sort, but I am certain she deserves an entry here that's more complete and informative than the one eyed for deletion. It should be fleshed out, not deleted!
 * Nothing written or sourced in this article suggests that she needs a standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the article that already exists on Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health. Being a city councillor in a city of just 60K does not get her over WP:NPOL — so being a plaintiff in a court case, even a notable one, just makes her a WP:BLP1E who should be covered in an article about the event rather than a standalone biography of her as a person. I'm redirecting it to the court case accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Being a city councilor in a major city in Connecticut certainly qualifies her for a Wikipedia page, and that is ignoring the fact that she was a plaintiff in a historically important court case. The two things together undeniably qualify her for inclusion in Wikipedia. Kiernanmc (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a city councillor only counts as notability under WP:NPOL in one of two instances: (a) they serve on the city council of a major metropolitan global city on the order of New York City, Toronto, London or Tokyo — i.e. one of the largest cities in the world, not merely in its own state — or (b) they can be spectacularly well sourced as far more notable than the norm for a city councillor, by virtue of the coverage of their work expanding far beyond the purely local. But nothing like that was shown at all — her city council work was basically dispatched with "is a city councillor, the end", with no evidence presented that she had done anything encyclopedically noteworthy in that context. So the court case just makes her a WP:BLP1E, who should be discussed in the article on the event rather than having one article about the event and a separate article about her as a person. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not actually what it says. What it says is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" qualify for a Wikipedia article. Kerrigan is unquestionably a major local political figure, and has received significant press coverage, as referenced above.Kiernanmc (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what it says — what I stated above is what "significant press coverage" means: there has to be a lot of it, not just one article which confirms their existence, and it has to expand beyond the purely local. Every single city councillor on the entire planet would always pass WP:NPOL #3 if that criterion were as loose as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How many city councilors end up in The New York Times not once, but twice? That is well above what the coverage a typical city councilor receives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiernanmc (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you haven't shown that she got into the NYT twice; you've only shown one NYT reference, not two. And that one reference is not covering her in the context of her work as a city councillor, but in the context of the court case — so it constitutes support for naming her in the article about the court case, and not for a standalone BLP of her as an individual separate from the existing article about the court case. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)