Deletion of Kate Stone

Comment: If she passes  then sources should be provided to show that. Otherwise this is a clear  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP1E||WP:SENSATION)

Comment: classic . {{user|Sandstein}} 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 .  Classic  and not , but might be  if she becomes a prominent campaigner for transgender rights over a long period of time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:PROF||WP:BLP1E||WP:FUTUREPROOF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: as creator. If Stone were covered only for her accident (about which much was written, e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625569/If-car-hits-stag-cars-usually-write-Academic-speaks-miraculous-survival-gored-walking-trip-leaving-scarred-life.html), I'd agree that this woud be a BLP1E case, but the additional coverage in the ''Guardian'' about the outcome of her PCC complaint (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/11/transgender-kate-stone-press-complaints-commission-ruling) makes her notable for pursuing this issue of press regulation / transgender nondiscrimination. If one looks at the http://www.novalia.co.uk/in-the-press-2/ 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: As a subtle point, I disagree that one must be active at university to be judged on the basis of  (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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)