Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanne Dodillet


 * 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. Not notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Susanne Dodillet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 03:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per DN coverage, not usual for these kind of writers. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep, widely cited by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable, solid coverage, invalid rationale for deletion ("Not notable" does not mean anything, you have to explain WHY you actually consider the subject "not notable"). Cavarrone 05:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is similar to Articles for deletion/Petra Östergren, nominated for deletion by the same editor. Yet again I'd argue that Dodillet is relevant according to our general notability guidelines not mainly because of her academic credentials (though she's closer than Östergren), but because of the role she's had in the Swedish debate regarding the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services. Mediearkivet ("the media archive", which collects articles from a big number of newspapers in the Nordic countries) gives plenty of evidence, if one can access it, and even though the Google news search the nomination automatically links to misses most texts, it hints at the fact that she's definitely quoted in notable publications well outside the academic community. /Julle (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I added another reference from an interview with her about the Swedish prostitution law. She is active as a researcher, presenter at conferences, and regularly gives interviews about this controversial topic. There is a good bit I can find with a google search biased to Lexington, KY. If we look behind paywalls and in better search engines we'll find even more. But with what we have now she easily meets the notability guideline. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep J 1982 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.
 * 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.