Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Jeffreys


 * 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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheila Jeffreys
Not Notable, Vanity, Fails every test in WP:BIO, Fails WP:PROF no awards, no significant academic contribution, not the originator of a new area in her field. Being a radical feminist does not in itself make one encyclopedic Kershner 05:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sandstein 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the author of this article. I disagree, because as you say, "being a radical feminist does not in itself make one encyclopedic", but she is a notable radical feminist. I would suggest you read say . I hope that article (which is among others), would convince you that she is a notable radical feminist. I might suggest that if you do not think she is a notable radical feminist, is that maybe because you do not know that much about radical feminism? She is certainly notable within her field. --SarahEmma 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is the author of several published books, and is well respected within the academic community. The article has been expanded to show details about her books. See also http://www.politics.unimelb.edu.au/aboutus/jeffreys.html, which is cited in the article. TruthbringerToronto 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per bibliography, Guardian interview, etc. --MCB 06:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I wouldn't say she's "well respected", but she's certainly "well known" (I find her analyses a bit silly, as much as I agree with other radical feminists; still I know these analyses because they're notable).  She has a whole bunch of books from good publishers.  LotLE × talk  06:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per LotLe. ~ trialsanderrors 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable as above. And Wikipedia already says she is a key thinker and prominent academic. --HJMG 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:HEY, should this article be expanded and properly cited to look like a professor or author's article and not so clearly POV, I would happily withdraw my nomination and change to Keep. Kershner 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep although multiple book publication or major newspaper interview is NOT evidence of notability in themselves. Cumulatively, possibly. Bwithh 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of above. David L Rattigan 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto. Beaner1 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Needs substantial additional sourcing and cleanup. Kickaha Ota 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.