Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Maines


 * 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   an article now exists about the court case, props to NewYorkActuary, so I'm withdrawing this nomination and redirecting the BLP to it in accordance with WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nicole Maines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E, parked on a single source, of a person notable primarily for her involvement in a state Supreme Court case. An article about the case would likely be justified — but a standalone WP:BLP of her, as a person, is not warranted as a separate topic from the event. And that's especially true if you have to delve into privacy-violating and completely unsourced statements about her personal life to get it beyond two sentences. Delete, without prejudice against creation of an event article about the court case. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as above. Blythwood (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Bearcat -- an article about the case might be more appropriate than an article about the plaintiff.  But right now, there is no article on the case (otherwise, I would have proposed a "redirect" instead of a "keep").  As to sourcing, there is some stuff out there.  The Boston Globe did an in-depth piece back in 2011 and the Huffington Post has been writing articles on the case (including articles about the lower court decisions).  It's a pity that whoever created this article didn't do a better job of it, but a better job can be done.  I've removed the unsourced BLP material and added a "Further Reading" section that includes links to the Boston Globe article and one of the Huffington Post articles.  In finding this material, I also ran across an Associated Press report on the state Supreme Court ruling (but neglected to add that to the article).  In all, the instant article can be expanded and, if necessary, renamed (so as to be about the case, and not the person).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * rename/redirect to Doe v. Clenchy (new article) or to the entry at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders until she passes a notability guideline in the future.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the name of the case (the articles I read didn't seem to mention it). I created a new article under the case name, using what little relevant information existed in the instant article, along with the links I described above.  I'll be striking my "keep" and changing it to a "redirect".  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm accordingly going to withdraw this nomination and go straight to a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Doe v. Clenchy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2016 (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.