Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Kramer Bussel

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Kramer Bussel[edit]

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

There are not enough sources about Bussel to show that she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - oh come on. She's a prominent and prolific sex author widely cited by her peers (look at the Google Scholar hits) satisfying WP:AUTHOR and have had features about her in reliable sources. [1][2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives states,

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.^[a]

Notes

^ A popular retort when asking for advice on the internet is "Search the Flaming Web" (STFW).^[1] However, not everything on the web is a reliable source that can be used to prove notability of a topic.

Citations

^ "STFW". Jargon File. Retrieved 21 August 2016.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using shading to give emphasis to your comments is certainly a violation of the spirit of WP:AFDFORMAT. Please don't do it again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've modifed the statement to put the attribution outside the quoted material. Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Scholar snippet from AD Ross - Sexuality & Culture, 2012 - Springer states that the topic is, "...a sex writer who is particularly concerned with the question of female masochism. According to Bussel, being submissive is actually..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "not enough sources" is not an adequate basis for deletion, absent any discussion of the depth and reliability of sources, just as a simple count of sources, with the same deficiency, is not an adequate basis for keeping an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2017 (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.

[2] A popular retort when asking for advice on the internet is "Search the Flaming Web" (STFW).^[1] However, not everything on the web is a reliable source that can be used to prove notability of a topic.

[1] "STFW". Jargon File. Retrieved 21 August 2016.

[a]

[1]