Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Marie Preston


 * 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ashlee Marie Preston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person who is not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG. The notability claims here -- having been editor in chief of a non-notable magazine, having been an unsuccessful candidate for political office, being purportedly (but not verifiably, as no reference cited here supports it at all) the first transgender woman to do either of those things, being named as an influential person in webmedia listicles, giving a TEDx talk -- are not instant notability freebies that would guarantee her an article just because she exists, but the article isn't properly sourced for the purposes of establishing that she would pass GNG for any of it. Apart from one magazine article about her declaring her unsuccessful candidacy, the only other references here are one of the listicles (which is not substantive, and is being cited only to support its own existence as a listicle rather than to support any content about Ashlee Marie Preston), and a primary source video of the TEDx talk itself. So the only source here that gets her off the starting blocks is the Ebony article, but that's not enough substantive coverage to get her to the finish line all by itself: there's not nearly enough quality referencing here to get her over the GNG bar, but none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have enough quality referencing to get over the GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable editor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to alert that this may be a case of WP:HEY. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh - Teen Vogue, Ebony (again), Daily Beast, Yahoo, Queerty, HuffPo, LAT, NBC. Why does it look so much like an editor with 100k contributions over 15 years forgot to do a google search?  G M G  talk  11:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete article is a close paraphrase of and as such a copyvio see . Probably should be a speedy candidate for that alone. WCM email 12:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep In case that wasn't already evident. I've also expended the article three-fold to include 15 citations, and that's without ref bombing, which could easily be done to prove a POINT, since most of the information is duplicated in multiple references. There are also additional references not used in the article being used for quotes on the corresponding Wikiquote page.  G M G  talk  18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I could argue either for keeping or deleting this article. On one hand, there's enough about a failed candidacy that would disqualify a lot of the sources from GNG, and other sources identified above aren't necessarily WP:SIGCOV, and there's also a possible copyvio. On the other, there's quite a bit there that's non-political that dovetails with the political. I lean delete in these sorts of situations, but am fine either way. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per RS GMG has shown and the many more that come up in a cursory google news search. Rab V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, since this woman has made history, article is well sourced as well and also per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per sources listed. /Julle (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But might have to be rewritten, per Wee Curry Monster. /Julle (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have basically entirely rewritten the article. Whatever is left of the original is only a few words.  G M G  talk  23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also ping for the same reason.   G M G  talk  23:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per sources listed. Livinginthepink (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hninthuzar (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, lets all pile on (one way to keep warm if you're in north america:)), meets WP:BIO, article reflects this with numerous WP:RS. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. References in article now demonstrate notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of references. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per refs, per WP:GNG. WP:HEY. BabbaQ (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.