Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petra Östergren

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. TNot notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Östergren

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

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs attention for sure, better sourcing for sure. Bot notable it is, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Petra Östergren was at the heart of the debate regarding the Swedish Sex Purchase Act in the 00s, a law that criminalizes the act of buying sex in Sweden. It's no accident she's mentioned a couple of times in the article Prostitution in Sweden. Her 2006 book sv:Porr, horor och feminister gained extensive attention, leading to nationwide controversy and debate (example from major Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter here: Kajsa Ekis Ekman, Petra Östergren). The Google news search links to basically all the important Swedish newspapers (Aftonbladet, Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten and so on), as well as to a number notable international newspapers (Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Le Monde, Libération); a search in the Swedish Mediearkivet ("the media archive") gives many more hits than the few found by that particular Google search. The argument for deletion simply states "not notable", not explaining why this would be the case. It's true that her academic credentials wouldn't merit inclusion on their own, but that's not why she's included in the encyclopedia from the very beginning. Her role as an academic is not the center of her public persona. /Julle (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid rationale for deletion: "Not notable" does not mean anything, you have to explain WHY you actually consider the subject "not notable", and others have already correctly pointed that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. Cavarrone 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media considers her an expert on the topic of prostitution reform legislation. Ample media to be verify information about her and her expertise on this topic. Easily meets notability guideline when using a search engine biased toward Lexington, KY searches. Would find more behind paywalls and with a better search engine. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep J 1982 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.[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.