Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah R. Brock

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 as WP:AUTHOR is met. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah R. Brock

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

Although the article claims "major contributions," I couldn't really find anything to back that up. There is a published book review, but I still don't think the subject meets WP:PROF. Agtx (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 06:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books offers plenty of publications citing Deborah Brock's works. These books cover different areas of academic research, from social criminology to cultural studies. The article is missing half of Brock's bibliography; on top of that, it is also lacking all the references about Brock's works published in the Left History peer-reviewed academic journal. Left History is/was indexed in America: History and Life (an academic journal from ABC-CLIO), Historical Abstracts (another academic journal from ABC-CLIO), Sociological Abstracts (formerly a Cambridge Scientific Abstracts journal, is now a ProQuest division), and the Alternative Press Index (an EBSCO bibliographic database of academic journals). There is no need to delete the aforementioned article, just to improve its sources (which I'm going to do as soon as possible). Toffanin (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find much. Yes, her book does get referenced, but it has a poor showing in G-Scholar (138 cites). I found one review of the book, although not in what I would call a major journal (Article: Brock, Deborah R. "Making Work, Making Trouble" (Book Review) Author:

Caulfield, Stephen Journal:Canadian journal of urban research ISSN: 1188-3774 Date: 12/01/2000 Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Page: 219). So I hope that Toffanin has better sources. I'll check back. LaMona (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Found evidence she has published several books, such as here on Amazon (although to date there are no customer reviews). Could not find much by way of secondary sources to establish notability. My media sweeps such as this one turned up other Deborah Brocks (there is a movie director with the same name) but not much on the academic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep as per Joe Decker in comment below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR # 1 and 3, possibly also 2, her pragmatic approach to prostitution is maybe not "new" but it is an important dissenting voice in the overall panic approach in certain countries. Her books are widely cited (hundreds of citations), and there are reviews like here, here, here, here, here and here. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ASA and G&M cites Kraxler cites are by themselves sufficient for AUTHOR. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though the article needs more sources Sofiamar (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (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.