Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Houston
Creator's rationale for keeping isn't particularly strong. Firstly, happening to be the Honoured Dyke at one specific Pride festival, in the city where one lives, is not in and of itself evidence of nationalized or internationalized notability — there have been ''far'' more Honoured Dykes and Grand Marshals at Toronto Pride who ''don't'' have Wikipedia articles than there have been ones who do (and even the ones who ''do'', it's not ''because'' honoured dyke or grand marshal, but because of the overarching notability of the ''reasons'' why they were ''chosen'' as honoured dyke or grand marshal.) Secondly, while Toronto's Pride is certainly ''one'' of the largest in all of North America, there is ''no'' sourced evidence that it's ''the'' largest even over New York City's or San Francisco's or Chicago's. Thirdly, neither being a giver of ''soundbite'' in media coverage of other things nor being the ''author'' of media content about other things confers a  or  pass in and of itself — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the ''subject'' of media coverage, not by being the author of it or by having her existence namechecked in coverage of ''other'' subjects. Fourthly, I'm not sure where he's getting the claim that she was ''Xtra''{{'}}s only-ever staff writer, but I'm sure Marcus McCann and Neil Herland and Eleanor Brown and Dale Smith and Rob Salerno and Rachel Giese would be fascinated by the implication that they don't exist. And fifthly, being a ''contract'' professor at a university isn't an automatic  pass, either. I'll add her to  as a ''potential'' future article topic, but nothing ''here'' as of right now is enough, in the ''absence'' of her being the ''subject'' of (again: not "quoted in", not "author of", but ''subject of'') quite a lot more reliable source coverage than has been shown.I'm not dismissing the value of Andrea's work at all, either — I certainly don't know her well, but I've met her personally once and have no reason whatsoever to dislike her. But having a Wikipedia article can have unintended ''negative'' consequences, such as the ability of anonymous people who ''do'' dislike her for some reason to make POV ''attack edits'' criticizing her, or to violate her privacy rights by posting her home address and phone number. That's the central reason why we have  rules, and specific notability standards that have to be |reliably sourced before a person is deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article: not to dismiss the Andrea Houstons of the world as unimportant, but to ''protect'' them from the potential ''consequences'' of having a ''poorly'' sourced article
— User:Bearcat, 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:JOURNALIST||WP:PROF||WP:CANQUEER||WP:BLP||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)