Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Keffler


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Maria Keffler

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet NBASIC. Majority of the sources are not significant or reliable. –– FormalDude  talk  14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender,  and Virginia.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There is a very little notability here but I do feel that the bar has to be set fairly high before we have a BLP article that can reasonably be interpreted as saying "This is a completely awful person", even if that was not the author's intent and if it is couched in sympathetic euphemistic language. I am wondering whether one or more her organisations might be more genuinely notable than she is as an individual. (I regret to have to say that I have at least heard of "Partners for Ethical Care".) If so, having an article about that/those would avoid the problem with having a negative BLP. If the article is kept then the weasel words have to go. We can't have the euphemistic language of "concerns" and "rights" where very conspicuously nobody says what those "concerns" and "rights" actually are. Either we talk about her plainly or we don't talk about her at all. If she is notable then it will be easy enough to turn up RS coverage and criticism of her. Oddly enough, there is little to none in the article, which also speaks against notability. Also against her notability is the fact that the article is very close to being an orphan. So what do the Google links say? It's hard to tell whether there is additional notability here as the initial hits are mostly just hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. Is there more actual notability for her as an author under all that? I didn't see any but I also didn't feel inclined dig deep enough to say "no" for sure, hence the "weak delete". --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apt analysis. My search turned up the same thing. –– FormalDude  talk  00:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: co-signing the above. She's appearing in the articles that aren't about her recent book because she's the spokesperson for an org, not because she herself is notable. In order to have a BLP on someone who is notable for opposing "the gender cult", we'd need sources that talk about her in that role, but that aren't interviews (right? someone correct me if not), and it doesn't look like we have that in a manner other than the aforementioned hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct–interviews are primary sources and therefore do not count towards notability. –– FormalDude  talk  06:10, 7 March 2022 (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.