Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Bushnell

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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 10:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine Bushnell

Seems non-notable; insignificant in her field, and only has 385 hits on google for her name (in quotes). Clinkophonist 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep More or less verified, including some sources mentioned inline (though not with proper Cite.php). Needs wikification. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems moderately notable especially given much of her work and writing is about 100 years old. I would say that it is notable that she was addressing and seriously studying these issues at the time that she did. And she is still talked about today. Maybe religous based feminism is not popular today but she certainly seems to be an important figure as such.--Nick Y. 00:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ample secondary sources mention her, available in the web-linked bio. 385 google hits seem to me to be `lots,' particularly for a 19th century figure. snug 00:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has already passed the 100 years test with regards to some of her work. I'm not sure what field the nominator is evaluating her on - it might be medicine, as that is the way the intro starts started when nominated, but that is not the field she is significant in. (And we need to clean up the intro, accordingly.) She is significant in feminism, especially Christian feminism and in the history of the sex trade, where she had impacts in America, British India, Hong Kong, and China. A published author with a book still in print 85 years after initial publication. 13 Google Scholar hits, 14 Google Book hits, including this one that includes one of her writings as a "key source document" for American feminism 1848-1920. She meets multiple tests in WP:BIO. GRBerry 02:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (Thanks to Armedblowfish for fixing the intro.) GRBerry 02:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed the intro? Thanks, but I don't remember doing that. I'm pretty sure I just fixed a book citation.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notablity established. CalJW 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, while fairly obscure she seems notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:29, 28 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.