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. Clear consensus bordering WP:SNOW to keep. Closing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chalker[edit]

Rebecca Chalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Borderline advert; I see no indication that this subject meets the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 23:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while the content of the article is objectionable, the subject meets the criteria of inclusion as there are multiple references about her as [1], [2], [3], [4], so she passes WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks SIGCOV. The references mentioned by Chiro725 are not specifically about Rebecca (ref #4 appears to be a about a completely different person). -KH-1 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I'm not sure what the "objectionable content" is, but she has an entry in Feminists Who Changed America: 1963-1975 and I easily found academic reviews of her books, e.g. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 2001. Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka, actually there was something objectionable, a sentence though - which I removed already. Chirota (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC, due to the sources identified by pburka, The Washington Post (2015) (identified by Chirota) and The New York Times (1989), The New York Times (1993), all of which have been added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient sources have been found to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough there to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. --John B123 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, see argument by pburka. --hroest 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources provided are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I would withdraw the nomination at this point due to improvements in the article, but given the timing and the state of the discussion, I do not believe withdrawal is necessary. BD2412 T 17:57, 24 April 2021 (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.