Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Stone


 * 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   delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kate Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is very much just another BLP1E of a non-notable scientist who happened to have the misfortune of having been involved in a freak accident which ended up in the presses for the wrong reasons. Company is non-notable, TED talk is non-notable. Article also suffers from massive WP:UNDUE. A l is o n ❤ 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, as creator. If Stone were covered only for her accident (about which much was written, e.g. ), I'd agree that this woud be a BLP1E case, but the additional coverage in the Guardian about the outcome of her PCC complaint ([) makes her notable for pursuing this issue of press regulation / transgender nondiscrimination. If one looks at the press section of the Novalia website, there's probably enough there for independent notability of her company as well. I agree with Alison that it would be very much preferable if the article would talk more about her work and career and less about her accident and its ramifications, but [[WP:UNDUE]] requires that our article covers what reliable sources write about, and in this case the sources do focus on these recent issues much more than about Stone's work in general. But that is an editing issue, and if editors find sources to flesh out the rest of her biography, then I'm all for that.   Sandstein   12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument by Sandstein --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete If she passes WP:ACADEMIC then sources should be provided to show that. Otherwise this is a clear WP:BLP1E and WP:SENSATION Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - classic WP:BLP1E. should have known better, but even he is not immune from making mistakes.  I have checked and she does not currently appear to be an academic working at a university, making it essentially impossible for her to meet WP:PROF.  Classic WP:BLP1E and not WP:FUTUREPROOF, but might be WP:TOOSOON if she becomes a prominent campaigner for transgender rights over a long period of time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not she's currently working as an academic is 100% irrelevant. Notability is not temporary. If she's made a significant contribution/held significant roles in the past she's still notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, it is relevant, because normally to meet WP:PROF a person has to go through several years of working in academia, and rise to professorial rank. Having only recently completed a PhD, which is step 2 (step 1 being a BEng), she needs to get to about step 15 before even being considered to meet WP:PROF.  Not being in academia, we can fairly safely predict that not only does she not currently meet WP:PROF, she's not going to meet WP:PROF in the next 20 years, by which time she'll be of retirement age. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a subtle point, I disagree that one must be active at university to be judged on the basis of WP:PROF (as the numerous articles on long-deceased or retired academics and scientists demonstrate). That being said, it appears her academic credentials are minimal. The WoS query "AUTHOR: (stone k*) Refined by: ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED: (UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH" shows 7 papers, none of which seem to be from Stone. Sources seem instead to focus on the sensationalism of Stone's transgender. I think the basic question is whether we can have a BLP based essentially on the transgenderism of an individual. I think not, since it is not notable per se. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Note that searching for papers by her (and hence h-index) is difficult if she published under her previous male identity, which isn't apparently public information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the previous identity is unknown, thats a pretty good indicator it isn't notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument for notability is not based on Stone's academic credentials, or her gender identity, but on the broader criterium of being the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources (and, therefore, public interest) per WP:GNG. This overrides any failure to meet more specific notability guidelines.  Sandstein   20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That coverage is all under the goring incident isn't though? That would be WP:BLP1E ,unless you are going to argue that the goring, and lawsuit regarding the coverage of the goring are separate enough incidents. That would be an argument which I personally don't find compelling as I think they are all rather the same event myself. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein - being referenced in the yellow press on some sensational story does not notable make. You can't just handwave away WP:SENSATION, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. And it is just related to one story, not two - A l is o n  ❤ 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I do think it is two stories. First, the goring incident (which is merely a human interest story and, as you say, ended up in the press likely in part for the wrong reasons but, still, major coverage not only in tabloids but also in reliable mainstream media including five separate stories in the BBC) and, second, the Guardian coverage about the PCC complaint, which is not about angry stags but about Stone's role in addressing problematic behavior of the British press – a rather different issue.   Sandstein   21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion. Move the content to Novalia and rewrite the text. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Novalia may pass GNG as WP:CORP based on the media links above, and a founder/ceo bio may be appropriate, but unless the goring/lwsuit stories are discussing Stone bring up Novalia it may be WP:COATRACK or WP:UNDUE to bring the current content over - the article would actually have to be about novalia. On the other hand, once there is a valid article, the barrier for additional content is much lower, so it could go either way as long as it wasn't pure WP:COATRACK Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An article about the company could well be created and some text could be reused (but nothing about the stag accident and its coverage, as that has nothing to do with the company). But that's a matter separate from the question of this biography's notability.  Sandstein   21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete because it is the right thing to do, and per WP:NOTATABLOID She is well known for one thing, that of being trampled by a stag. She may have academic notability. However the rest is just juicy gossip reminiscent of publications such as the Sunday Sport. Wikipedia should be better than this. In addition Dr Stone clearly wishes privacy, and we should respect that. Martin 4 5 1  17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know that she wishes privacy? She made herself available for the reporting about the incident, and then spoke to the Guardian about her PCC complaint. That's what makes her notable, not the tabloid-y stag issue. It doesn't look as though she just wants to be left alone, and she has little reason to want this: as an entrepreneur, media coverage is generally in her interest.  Sandstein   20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * She has specifically complained to the PCC about the coverage of her life, and specific things in her life. That complaint is about her personal privacy. We now have an article that highlights the very things she was complaining about, because she asked for privacy in those matters. This is exactly what WP:BLP was written for. Martin 4 5 1  23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article was created only recently and there is a potential it can be expanded. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Expanded, how? A careful search has already determined that there's little, if anything to be said regarding academic contributions. That leaves only the sensationalistic aspect of Stone's accident and and subsequent gender row, neither of which are notable per se. Because the only actual source-able information is associated with this one event, "keep" would amount to having yet another tabloid (rather than encyclopedic) article on WP. Agricola44 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2014 (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.