Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Stone
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
— User:Sandstein, 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)