Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Maltzahn
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  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
— User:Bearcat, 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCE||WP:RS||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:No original research)