Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Malone

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Kit Malone}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Kit Malone}})

I just don't see any indication of WP:GNG described in the lead or based on the sources provided. She works in a local branch of the ACLU and is certainly quoted in local media regarding Transgender issues, but there is very little independent coverage about her specifically that I can find. Most of the sources are covering specific issues or are not independent of the subject. I think more eyes are needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

:Withdrawn by nominator Came upon this in New Page Patrol and applied standards of GNG that I believed to be appropriate, based on my experience, and wanted other editor's input in the form of an AfD. But upon reflection of the points raised by the comments below, I may have erred in my assessment of this one. Hopefully I can learn from it and move forward. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

:* Keep. At the time of creation of this article, which is only a few days old, there were already 15 sources, of which 13 are independent, secondary news media sources. One source is her staff bio and one is an article she authored, but these are not necessary for the assertion of notability, which is that she is notable for her activism work. And you would find plenty more passing mentions in a simple news search that I did not include, because it was unnecessary. What do you mean by "little independent coverage"? It seems like you are applying a different standard than GNG.

If you are nominating an article that is already fully fleshed out, with more than a dozen independent sources supporting the assertion of notability—multiple of which are more than passing mentions, and actual biographical profiles in independent, reliable secondary publications (e.g. [https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/26/bathroom-politics-amp-up-lgbt-rights-debate/77749264/], [https://nuvo.newsnirvana.com/news/talking-with-kit-malone-about-indy-pride/article_e0459990-861b-11e9-a9b9-6fdaff378a68.html])—you need to address what issue you take with specific reference to why they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. But you haven't made any actual arguments about what you find lacking in the specific sources, and made other arguments such as "sources are covering specific issues" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or that she works for a local organization, which seem entirely unrelated to the question of notability. Dominic·t 00:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:*:{{ping|Dominic}} I understand that as the originator of this, you've done hard work on creating this very well-written article. I still disagree with your assessment of the sources. For example, you say {{tq|actual biographical profiles in independent, reliable secondary publications}} and then offer two examples, the first of which mentions an anecdote involving Malone, and a couple quotes, but as part of a larger article. More than passing, yes, but certainly not a "biographical profile" as you say. The second example you provided is an interview with local press about an event she's helping organize. According to WP:INTERVIEWS {{tq|A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability.}} I don't see the multitude or the breadth. I did plenty of searching for sources to prove myself wrong but it was almost completely small quotes provided in bigger articles to get the perspective of an activist. Being used as a source for quotes is not substantial coverage of the subject itself, and as an activist in local politics with slim coverage outside of Indiana, she does not seem to me to pass WP:NOTABILITY for politicians (as an activist) either. That said, I have great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, and your points are good. Personally, I'd like to see this subject get an article, but I had to go with my understanding of GNG guidelines. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:*::It's a bit hard to follow the argument when you are moving the goalposts each time. First you said the sources were not independent, when the mostly all are. Now you you are taking issue with me calling the one of main biographical sources a "profile", which... was not really my main point or what is relevant to notability—the point is that a major paper gave her significant biographical coverage. The other article, which you are contesting by quoting a non-policy essay that doesn't have wide acceptance, is more than a mere interview, in any case, since it is only about half composed actual quotations, and also contains other prose biographical information. It is also clear from this source the rationale for this interview, with her name in the headline, is specifically related to the the activities that made her notable, and not just being quoted as a spokesperson or for promotion of the event. I understand the sources are mostly regional (though the IndyStar is a major newspaper of record in the United States), but it is certainly possible to establish notability with such sources, and it feels like you are applying a higher bar than GNG actually calls for, for some reason. Dominic·t 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:*:::I will withdraw the nomination. I was doing new page patrol and applying the same high bar for GNG that I've seen applied in many past cases and past AfDs and wanted additional input. It looks like I made a mistake with this one. I'll try to examine where I may have went wrong in my assessment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:*::::{{re|Pyrrho the Skipper}} Thanks, I do appreciate you taking my responses on board. I don't think this was a bad discussion to have had. I think it could have been hashed out on a talk page first, and the deletion nomination prevented, as I always hope that discussions can precede deletion nominations, especially in marginal cases and with experienced editors. Dominic·t 20:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:*:::::Well said and appreciated. I'll remove the AfD tags. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:* Keep. Not an expert on USA activism, but if someone is fairly active, does pioneering work and is visible in the media of one state (and that state is as big as average European Union country), I would not consider that very 'local' visibility...maybe if it was just city wide OK, but this looks significant enough. Also article has just been created and I would not rush with AfD if it is borderline case anyway. --Zblace (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

:* Keep The article has more than 10 independent, secondary sources. While there is her staff bio and a personally authored article, they weren't needed to establish notability and rather help to flesh out the article. As time moves on, this article will continue to expand and more sources will become readily available but I personally feel her notability is established in the article. Per WP:NOTABILITY Kit has received multiple awards, and is a well known activist within Indiana and the Midwest. JamieF (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC) (Should have read more closely, I'm seeing it's been withdrawn - thank you for participating in discourse and taking the discussion into consideration.)

:*:Your comment is appreciated. I will remove the AfD tags Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.