Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanne Kapeller


 * 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. The rough consensus is that the subject is notable enough for our guidelines, even if not strongly so. Some sources have been added. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Susanne Kappeler

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Author and academic. However, does not seem to meet the rough criteria for inclusion. Moreover, this is an unreferenced BLP. Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a reference and her bibliography. The person is clearly notable. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The varying spelling of her surname in the title and article don't help. Searches on Google and Google Scholar using "Kappeler" are more fruitful though I suspect not reaching the notability level that has been demanded on other articles. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment On the book the name is spelled "Susanne Kappeler" my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page to Susanne Kappeler. The AfD nomination template has been fixed too so it redirects here. I think we can get rid of the redirect when this discussion is closed, or maybe even earlier. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above discussion,. plus sourcing..etc--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Prior to nominating an article for deletion, opportunities for discussion should be initiated on the article's talk page along with possibly adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. I find it disconcerting that this article was nominated on the same day that it was initially created. That said, it appears as though the original poster's hand is being bit off at the wrist. Any problems that editors may have with this article can easily be corrected during the normal editing process. This article is not a good candidate for AfD. Please refer to the articles for deletion page that covers the process and criteria for deletion, along with proper Wikietiquette. Cindamuse (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, thank you Cindamuse - that's only because the original poster's hand *was* a bit off at the wrist, being the first article he had tried to add to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. My initial take on the article is that Kappeler fails the general notability guideline: the references in the article do not give significant coverage to her (even Hawthorne's academic paper is about her ideas and not a biography of her). However, based on the article being a scant day old, it is likely that other references may exist on her but haven't been located yet. If anybody finds a source that does report on Kappeler significantly, please drop a line on my talk page, and I'll reconsider my !vote. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I an convinced neither by the article nor by the references that the subject is particularly notable. However, as with C.Fred, I am open to convincing by further additions. As things stand, the subject appears to be an academic doing a job, publishing a few titles along the way that do not sound world-shattering to me. Convince me otherwise... 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the fact that her publications are not world-shattering is completely irrelevant, this is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. One of her books (The Pornography of Representation) was groundbreaking in many ways, and if you have the time and patience I can explain to you why.Mondoallegro (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  . The standard of inclusion in Wikipedia is  notability, not a world-shattering career. It is notable as defined in our guidelines, not the vague higher standard of "particularly notable".   An academic is expected to publish; it is the quality and amount of the publication that distinguishes notable from non-notable academics. I see at least two major books by important academic publishers, each in hundred of libraries, and with reviews available (I added some of them to the article). That would be enough to make her notable as an author, as well as fWP:PROF; in fact, considering her career as stated, I think perhaps authorship might be the better standard. Whether she meets the GNG is irrelevant, if she meets the others.   DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- a bit weak but WP:AUTHOR looks passable, especially for The Pornography of Representation which appears well quoted and reviewed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (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.