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 keep. Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN, also fails WP:PROF. The article has existed as an orphan since March last year. Frickeg (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator, is neither a notable politician nor a notable academic. Has recieved some coverage here in the Australian, here in the Brisbane Times and even an interview with Wikinews, but none of this suggests anything more than a perennial candidate for minor parties in seats where they have no chance.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To take a contrary position I am tempted towards Keep. While the result of her candidacy is not rosy, she seems to have left enough footprints in the media to sustain an article. She was allegedly pollywhacked, her karate classes are discussed, her loss twice to Tony Abbott seems discussed (and again,.... hey even wikinews interviewed her. All this coupled with probable commentary for TV appearances, commentary on her production of the "Vagina Monologues", her published views on subjects that attract commentary etc. There seems ample independent discussion of her, perhaps as she has fingers in many pies ? Appears to meet the standards needed for a decent article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but don't you feel like a lot of this necessarily comes with the fact that she is unsuccessful? An individual who, by virtue of running high-profile(ish) campaigns with no chance of success, is consistently on the periphery of the political landscape will get coverage like this, but does that make her notable? I feel like the nature of political coverage by the media during elections (often covering scrappy underdog campaigns) will lend candidates such as these coverage disproportionate to their notability. Essentially, I feel like the coverage itself suggests that she isn't notable. Certainly it doesn't suggest anything that might satisfy the political or academic notability guidelines.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in isolation they cast doubt as to her notability, your right she hasnt met WP:POLITICIAN nor does she meet WP:PROF alone but its the sum of these parts plus, her writting, her TV career, her radio career that combined makes her meet WP:NOTABILITY which is the defining policy, not the individual guidelines. Gnangarra 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let's take a look at those sources. We can dismiss the karate one out of hand - it's a promotional piece on a local website, the Ipswich News. Her loss to Tony Abbott (by the way, the source that says she got 4.3% is wrong, it was 1.8% - 4.3% was her vote in Bundamba at the state election against Jo-Ann Miller) is a textbook case of being an unsuccessful candidate, even if it received a small amount of coverage (not much - you need a lot more to qualify for that). The "published views" are published on a site for a rally at which she spoke. Her production of the Vagina Monologues was at the Ipswich Civic Centre. All these things point to a moderately notable local identity (if we were doing an Ipswich wiki then she'd be in no question), but none of them point to wider notability. The only thing that is a possible cause for notability is therefore her appearances on Beauty and the Beast - which, quite frankly, I don't think really cuts it. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at where those sources are the National broadcaster ABC, BrisbaneTimes both hace profiles on her and discuss her background both are major media outlets not some local rag. Beauty and the Beast was a long running National TV show. Your objection is based solely on her being endorsed for as a candidate for an election that hasnt even been called, as I've already explained she met notability for the sum of her efforts rather than an individual event, which is the purpose of dismissing political candidates. Oh any by the way the election has not been called there's not even reasonable spectulation of any date just that its going occur sometime in the future. What has happen recently is that a discussion occured on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Notability_of_political_candidates about how to address articles of candidates if they are created, this article existed long before that. Gnangarra 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that her notability extends beyond QLD an alleged assult was even covered in the Sydney Morning Herald Gnangarra 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. She'd be non-notable even if she wasn't. It was actually just coincidence that I happened to find this article just after the discussion at AUP. And, um, where's the ABC profile? I've had a look and haven't found it. So basically your approach is that she's notable because she is an occasional panellist on a daytime TV show and because she claims she was slapped by an ALP MP? My objections to all of the sources provided stand. Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please strike the statement Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN from your nomination because your objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. So what is your reason for nominating the article? Gnangarra 07:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nominating the article is that it clearly fails the WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF. You claimed that my objection was made "solely on her being endorsed ..." which is nonsense. My nomination had no political motivation, and was not a result of her candidature in 2010 - having found the article, I would have nominated it if she was running or not. Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this appears notable article was created in 2009 by Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation looking at refs from 2009[1] there appears to be enough to confirm notability. One of those refs listed[2] confirms that she was a regular panelist on Beauty and the Beast plus her published books, plus her previous failure during the last QLD election and current endorsement for the next federal election. she's notable just that the article needs a cleanup, and some careful watching for probable COI editing. Gnangarra 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Periptus has demonstrated more than sufficient coverage for this lady to pass the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's well-known, and the sources demonstrate notability. Australians on Wikipedia have the most bizarre attitude toward political candidates - someone whose biography wouldn't be questioned if they didn't run for parliament tends to get their article nominated for deletion if they later do. Rebecca (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.She's one of the best known feminist academics in Australia, specifically in relation to the pornography debate, she's competed in "Celebrity Challenge" a theatresports event reserved for high profile, notable figures, she is well known for her TV and radio work, she's currently receiving a lot of attention in relation to her political candidature and even if she wasn't successful in previous elections, her profile was such that she was discussed at length by leading media commentators. Her book "Morality, Sexual Facts and Fantasies" has been discussed at length by academics. I believe several philosophy departments (I know of one in particular in NZ) uses her book as their first year text book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.220.236 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Comment. As Frickeg has pointed out above, the coverage about Petersen that does not relate to her electoral efforts would constitute a very tenuous claim to notability when taken in isolation. However, those !voting keep seem to be suggesting that the overall extent of the coverage (relating to both her political and academic/professional activities) satisfies the general notability guideline. My question to those !voting to keep is whether the content of the coverage suggest that she is notable, or is it just the volume of it. To me, while the volume is not insignificant, the content itself doesn't suggest that she is particularly remarkable. I prepared to be convinced, though.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• People can be notable for failing. Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards got most of his press coverage through coming last. The GNG doesn't ask whether someone's successful.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards was the UK's best ski jumper and a carrier of the Olympic Torch. I'm not sure the situations are comparable. Frickeg (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment I've done a quick google search on her. Already I've found that she has given papers at a number of universities, her book is being sold in the Uk, US, Europe and India (maybe others I didn't keep searching), she has put on plays in Melbourne, Sydney, Byron Bay and Ipswich, there's internet evidence that she is an artist, there are numerous articles about her teaching and being a black belt in karate, a number of university sites mention that she is a politics, English literature lecturer etc, there are a few references to the fact that she was on a national tv show, was the relationships expert for two of the most listened to radio shows in OZ, radio 2ue Sydney and B105 Brisbane. She is mentioned on several other wiki sites. I've noticed that she is currently being attacked by her political opponents. One needs to wonder whether this push for deletion is really about political interference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment I've just been told that she has received international media attention including BBC news coverage for her views on pornography. You don't make the BBC because you have won or lost an election in Australia. She has an international reputation, not just a national one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noteplease note you are welcome to make further comments or respond to question but please preface your comments with Comment and only express either Keep, Delete, Merge, Rename once. I have struck the all but your first opinion amd replaced them with comment Gnangarra 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a link to the BBC coverage I would definitely reconsider my !vote, but Google News returns no such result.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not in any way notable, but Patricia Peterson, former University at Albany professor, may be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Read the Nutshell in Wikipedia:Notability. She has been noticed to a (possibly significant) degree by independant sources so she has some notability—the debate is about whether this is a sufficiency— and as such your bald statement appears to be lacking. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Peripitus. The general notability guideline does not say that simply because something or someone has received significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject it is thus notable. Rather, it says that this sort of coverage establishes a presumption that the subject is notable. Notability is indicated by significant coverage, not because of it. Something can receive significant coverage and still be completely unspectacular, as is the case here. Have a look at the revised article, which has been completely referenced. It has ten sources, and yet does not contain a single fact that might indicate that she is significant, unusual, interesting or notable.

Now I do not mean to say that the sort of coverage plays no part in establishing notability. If the BBC source had come up, that would have indicated international recognition, and I probably would have changed by !vote. However, this has not appeared, despite searching both the Google News archives and the BBC's website, and accordingly what we have is a well-referenced article about a completely non-notable person.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are confusing notable enough to us with notable at all. Bearing has declared that she is not in any way notable (read worthy of writing about) but those in the press who write about her surely disagree. Well referenced to reliable sources means that, to some extent, the subject is notable because it is noted in such reliable sources. Just because something is not spectacular, interesting or unusual does not preclude an article and the converse is true - Peripitus (Talk) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - noting that she passes notability in the absence of her political candidacy, not because of it. Orderinchaos 05:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like someone more adept at self-promotion than anything else. Is def. not "one of the best known feminist academics in Australia" (if she was, presumably she would have landed a job somewhere). Her book was self-published by a vanity press. She appears to have no publications in refereed, scholarly journals. And no details are provided about her PhD thesis (topic, year of graduation, etc). Presents herself as someone who has lived all her life in the local Ipswich community, yet lived in Sydney long enough to complete her degree and contest two federal elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Church19 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.