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 Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wholly negative BLP about a lawyer/anti-LGBT activist. Apparently known for protesting LGBT-related legislation, and not much else. I can find no news hits whatsoever, and I stopped looking for sources other than blogs six pages into a Google search for "Cathy|Bugs Brennan". I do not believe this person meets WP:GNG §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousoranj (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Curiousoranj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think the subject is notable. The article already contains links to two different news articles (not blogs) that prominently feature Cathy Brennan. I think that's pretty good for its first day online. Also, I don't think this BLP is "wholly negative." It mentions the fact that Brennan helped pass a 2001 law outlawing discrimination in Maryland on the basis of sexual orientation, which many people I think would feel is a positive thing. Also, it contains quotes from Brennan articulating what she believes, things she stands behind. Some of her ideas are "extreme" so it may seem like they are being portrayed "negatively," but I think they are an accurate representation of her central ideas, in her own words. Rebecca (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Rebecca again, the initial creator of this article. I reflected on the issue of deleting this article a little more. A thorough search actually reveals that the two news stories I used to source much of this article are the only two journalistic sources that apparently exist on the topic of Cathy Brennan. I guess a person who truly met Wikipedia's standards for notability would have more news articles about her. So Brennan is apparently less well known than I thought she was. Also, though I tried to write the article without bias, I probably should not wave away the fact that another editor found this article to be "wholly negative." I don't want to there to be a wholly negative article about a living person, and I'm not sure how the article could be re-written to correct for that. In light of these new reflections, I'm having second thoughts about the wisdom of having written this article in the first place, and I have changed my mind and now support its deletion. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being the bogeyman of internet trans women with way too much time on their hands does not entitle one to a Wikipedia article. 3hunna (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "bogeyperson." Rebecca (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article has now been requested for speedy deletion G7 by the creator. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2012 (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.