Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Maltzahn


 * 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   no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen Maltzahn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. was an unsuccessful state candidate and only a local councillor. her career is unremarkable, yes she published a book but does not meet WP:AUTHOR. use of primary sources, blogs and twitter as references don't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:NPOL has a pretty high standard when it comes to notability guidelines, on that alone is grounds for deletion.  Also, as the nom indicates, this individual's one book fails WP:NAUTHOR as well.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Once again a notable person enters and then loses and election and is magically deemed non-notable. Completely outside of the election this noted author has received a great amount of significant coverage from the likes of the Special Broadcasting Service, the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, and the government Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault Aware, the latter two of which her and her book ‘’Trafficked’’ received extensive review.  All of these make no mention of her political race.  That she lost an election is simply a red herring to her notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the third link doesn't appear to work. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * those sources you provide don't do enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. My nomination tries to assess if she meets other notability criteria besides her political career, it is no red herring. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed third link. She easily meets WP:GNG outside of the election and arguably meets WP:AUTHOR as her were work has been citied by multiple notable organizations. --Oakshade (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * it is rare that publishing one book satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Authors in WP would have published several books. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. While it's certainly possible that she might meet another notability rule as Oakshade suggests, this article as written does not adequately demonstrate that. Almost every source cited in the article is a primary or unreliable one — her own website, the websites of organizations she's involved in, her own Twitter account, and on and so forth — and virtually none of it is sourced to media coverage substantive enough to actually get her past any of our notability rules (no, not even WP:GNG has been surpassed here.) No prejudice against future recreation if someone can write and source a version that actually properly establishes and properly sources whatever notability she might have as a writer, but this version fails to do so and is not entitled to stick around in this form just because Oakshade asserts that she has more notability than the article has demonstrated. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most coverage I found was as a founding director of Project Respect rather than as candidate: IPSENW from 2004, IPSENW from 2003, Australasian Business Intelligence in 2002, quoted in AP piece in 2008 (also available via The Guardian), discussed/cited in The Politics of Sex Trafficking (book), extensive citation, quote, etc. in a publication of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and in this article from Dialogue e-journal. Also The Australian from 2009, Right Now, transcript of her speaking with others as part of the ABC Television program Four Corners about Australia's sex industry (2011). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG (which means they don't all have to be on the same topic such that she would meet this or that more specific set of criteria). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  06:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep sources listed here and in the article are enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sources listed in the article are nearly all WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that do not confer notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely why said "here and in the article."
 * (The Australian and Herald Sun from the article are not primary. The ones I linked to above aren't primary (unless you count quotes or the interview transcript). The ones linked to above aren't primary (at least not as far as I can tell)). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "In the article" being exactly the point I was responding to. The article, as written, is referenced almost entirely to her own writing about herself, to the web pages of organizations she's been directly involved in, and to blogspot blogs. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My only point was that by not responding to Hobit's whole statement you knocked down a straw man. Effectively, "No. Part of what you said doesn't actually do the thing you didn't say it did on its own." If he/she had provided the simple qualification of "...those in the article that aren't primary" the response would be moot even though this qualified version is compatible with the original. ...This is turning into more of a tangent and more argumentative than I intended. Not accusing bad faith by any means; I just know that these discussions can easily have cascading effects, especially when preceded by experienced editors. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all the sources I supplied are not "primary" ones. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, two of the three sources you listed here are primary sources. If a person has been directly involved in an organization, then that organization's own webpage is not a source that demonstrates the notability of her involvement in that organization — coverage in independent sources is. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which two? I see SBS, Institute of Sisters of Mercy, and Australian Institute of Family Studies. If I had to guess I'd assume the latter two, but what am I missing? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct. SBS is real media, obviously, but the other two are the webpages of organizations that she was directly involved with, and thus are primary sources which cannot demonstrate the notability of her work with those organizations. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked through her article and the two links, and then googled her name along with each of them and I'm not seeing it. What link am I missing that says she has worked with those associations? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears this is close enough that your assertion that they are not independent sources matters. Can you link to the connection she has with them? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  06:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually doesn't even matter whether she's directly involved with them in the sense of being a literal member, or indirectly involved with them in the sense of being active on some of the same issues those organizations are, and thereby having directly worked with people who are literal members of the organization — it's still a connection which discounts the independence of the sources. And the added bonus being that the sources in question aren't actual media anyway, and thus wouldn't count as reliable sources even if you could prove that she actually had complete, absolute independence of the organizations and every individual person directly involved in them. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? You stated, not supposed, that she's involved with those organizations and so they're not independent and therefore unreliable. Now you're saying it was basically an assumption she was involved, but who cares because they work on the same issues and so therefore she must have worked with some of them. You don't realize how POV that sounds? Can we stick to what the sources say? The "issues" on which they both work is "human rights." More specifically, women's rights and violence against women. Not some fringe science topic or partisan political ideology. That an organization works against human trafficking or sexual violence does not disqualify them as a reliable source to talk about people who also work against human trafficking and sexual violence. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I "stated" nothing differently from what I just restated here. And what disqualifies the organizations as reliable sources, regardless of the topic they work on, is the fact that they are organizations and not media. Being mentioned on the webpage of an organization, related or unrelated, does not constitute media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have just notified people who might be able to bring the references up to standard. Please postpone the tally of the deletion vote until after 23 June, to give them a chance to fix the article. Thanks. AlastairIrvine (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * be careful that when you contact others you are not WP:CANVASSing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed about WP:CANVAS, but regardless you certainly can't count on it going past 6/23. If there are sources, just copy the links and post them here for now. All that's required to keep is the existence of the sources. They can be worked into the article later. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  15:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete fails notability guidelines for both writers and politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  16:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope this is ok to do this far into the discussion -- seems like an oversight since she's better known for this kind of work than as a politician (and if politicians delsort is how many people come to the discussion, I could see why she, framed as first and foremost a politician, would not seem notable.--&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am coming via Rhododendrites's flagging this as a Gender and Sexuality deletion, and in those terms and given the state of the page as today July 1st, it seems like she is a notable sex trafficking scholar/activist in Australia (given the detail in the criticism section). Given that, it seems like it makes sense to trim some of the biographical info from the Background section.--Theredproject (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2014 (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.