Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Assange


 * 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   redirect to Julian Assange. Opinions are divided between delete and merge. As a compromise, redirection allows editors to decide what if anything should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Christine Assange

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This person is not biographically notable = Its a shame imo on en wikipedia that this biography has been allowed to be created and that it needs me to attempt to get it deleted - You  really  can  00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)  You  really  can  00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. Not proof of notability. Delete the article and merge and related material, if any exists, into Julian Assange. --NINTENDUDE 64 01:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Delete and merge" is not a valid result under Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, it is. --NINTENDUDE 64 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited, even to mothers of notable people, and she has no independent notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge a line or two to Julian Assange. A relative, not a public figure. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Julian Assange. I found a number of independent sources discussing her, but any publicity that she may receive is solely because of her son. NJ Wine (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge information into Julian Assange. This is a WP:BLP1E situation, because Christine Assange has received coverage only based upon being the mother of Julian Assange. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not inherited.Roodog2k (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete and merge: Obvious WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED issues are obvious. Merge to brief coverage in Julian Assange. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Delete and merge" is not a valid result under Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't create this page in response to Christine Hawkin's/Assange's public profile as a result of her son's current high profile. I was looking at a campaign organised by her that predates Wikileaks - 2006 "The Great Bikini March" (my area of interest is Muslims in Australia and this was Muslim-related). This was a very high-profile event in Australia (and received international media coverage as well) and is mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on Taj el din al Hilaly. Hawkins' name is noted there, but without noting her later campaigning as Christine Assange. (I tried to edit the Hilaly page to include this by the way but the changes were not saved, for whatever reason.) If Christine Hawkins had not later become known as Christine Assange, I would still have created an entry for her (there is a red "page does not exist" hyperlink for her name on the Hilaly entry so I thought that I'd fill it in) because of her role in creating, organising and then cancelling (because of far-right hijacking of the event) the Bikini March. Her son's fame now overshadows her own - but Australians at least knew her as Christine Hawkins prior to her son becoming famous. Therefore, she merits an entry of her own. I agree that the entry could usefully be expanded so that it's clear that it isn't just about "Julian Assange's mum" - if anyone else wants to contribute to that, I'd obviously be grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre Wikileaks sources on Christine Hawkins/Assange http://www.salon.com/2006/11/28/bikini_march/ http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1798532.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Another pre-wikileaks article about Christine Hawkins's campaigning (as she was then). http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mosque-to-get-police-guard-for-bikini-rally/2006/12/02/1164777846230.html She may not have been famous, but she was notable long before her son hit the headlines. It's hard to sift out the pre-Wikileaks material now because her son is obviously far more famous - but it's out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've just added a short paragraph outlining Hawkins'/Assange's public campaigning per-Wikileaks, prior to her resuming the use of the name Assange as well as prior to the name Assange having any notability. Back then, he was just an obscure blogger...and Christine Hawkin's son.--Rosabibi (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree that a single failed march/event organizing and support for her own son make her worthy of, or give a good reason/assert a level of notability to host a biography on her. -  You  really  can  09:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Keep - Comment After reading the update, I see the point that she's more than Julian's mother and with the updated content and sources, I think it does pass WP:N for significance and presumed. It's not an important article to me, but the objection of inherited notability seems to have been made moot. Vertium (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vertium. In retrospect, I guess I ought to have added the pre-wikileaks, non-Julian Assange related material at the outset. I've created other very brief entries in the past and enjoy the dynamic of other users adding material - planting a seed and watching it grow. I didn't take into account that without further information, people would not be able to tell that it had the potential develop into a complete entry rather than a subsection and would immediately tag it for deletion. With regard to her profile post-Wikileaks, her campaigning on his behalf extends well beyond standard parental support. In that regard, she's perhaps a similar case to Terry Hicks - although Terry Hicks had no public profile at all prior to his son's arrest and notability, while Hawkins/Assange had made headlines herself back when her son was a total unknown. --Rosabibi (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the comment about the Bikini march having "failed", it failed in the sense that it was appropriated by the far-right and had to be cancelled, but it was successful in gaining widespread attention and so didn't fail in the sense of impact. It came under longer-term discussion in the following years, being mentioned in journal articles and books, but I didn't cite those because so far as I could see, they didn't mention Hawkins/Assange by name. Still, it was very much her event and it wasn't just a one-day story. Her name will always be associated with her son now, of course, but her personal profile is becoming ever-more-prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @User:The Bushranger - there is a clear consensus to delete merge this article - She is not going to become any more notable - no one has changed their vote  - there is no need to lengthen proceedings - this has run its course.  You  really  can  07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Delete and merge" is not a valid result. If content is merged, the article must be kept, as a redirect, for attribution; deletion would make the merged content WP:COPYVIO under the copying-within-Wikipedia policies. There is not a clear consensus for either by itself, hence the relisting. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The result in this discussion is ..Delete .... and then ...discuss on the suggested article as to what to ..Merge .... -  as actually there is nothing to merge - anyone that wants to add excessive detail to her sons article about a failed not notable march The Great Australian Bikini March (which is the historic incident  this article was created as a coatrack to cover) will have to discuss its inclusion there as it will likely get rejected via discussion there - which will make the merge result null and void anyways. . - You delete the article and then recreate the redirect and direct users that are interested to add some content  to discuss on the talkpage of her son and the content created if consensus is attained for an addition,  will be new with no copy vio issues -  As per Sionk in their post below - "She is already mentioned in the Assange article as being his mother." -  You  really  can  04:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that three or four users of wikipedia want to disengage Julia Assange/Hawkins from his mother Christine Assange/Hawkins is hardly decisive in deciding whether to delete this page. There are wikipedia entries for people who are far less "notable". The objections are partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsultmann (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Hsultmann (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Could we try tagging it as a stub rather than deleting, at least for awhile? The article has not been up for very long and there is more material out there on Ms Assange/Hawkins - a lot of it primarily about her rather than her son, but it takes work to filter through it all. It's not a complete entry at this stage, I grant you that - but that calls for more work, not deletion or merging. I wouldn't suggest creating entries on Assange's other family members (even those who have made the news) because they have not established strong personal profiles. And again, I note that there are wikipedia entries about other parents whose notability derives from campaigning on behalf of their offspring, above and beyond the call of normal parental duty. Terry Hicks (father of David Hicks, imprisoned in Guantanmo bay) and Sarah Conlon who campaigned on behalf of her son and husband (convicted of the Guildford pub bombings). Or the Virgin Mary, come to that. These parents are not notable because they happen to have famous children, but because they have undertaken high-profile public campaigning on behalf of those children (or talked with angels, in Mary's case, but leave that one aside). And (I know I'm repeating myself here) Hawkins/Assange had a minor public profile prior to anyone knowing her son from a bar of soap. If we can leave it up as a stub, I'm sure that others will build on the entry (especially as she seems to be attracting more and more public attention/notability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - being mentioned as an organiser of a demonstration is not strong enough proof of notability, IMO. There is not enough biographical information available about her to support a meaningful article. She is already mentioned in the Assange article as being his mother. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Frankly, merge to Julian Assange is unnecessary. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roodog2k and Cullen328. Nothing requires to be to merged, per Sionk. One21dot216dot (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will reiterate my Keep as noted above and expand my comments. This article seems to pass WP:N and the argument that the subject has not continued to be notable, nor likely to be notable in the future is not relevant to this discussion.  A quick refresh of WP:N will remind you that notability is not temporary.  If it was notable at the time of occurrence (as it was reported in reliable sources, that test seems passed), it remains notable.  WP is not only for current events or currently-notable individuals.  The original nomination and the subsequent comments by the nominator seem fueled by passion for deletion - though I don't believe that the case has been made objectively.  Given that consensus has not been reached after the nomination (a process through which the article was expanded) and its extension, I concur with Rosabibi's suggestion that it be kept and tag it as a stub.   Vertium   (talk to me)  11:53, 22 June 2012 (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.