This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
I fail to see why this page has had its notability challenged: Sue-Ellen Case is a notably active theorist. Dsp13 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. She's a huge deal. I'm surprised the article is so small, actually. I don't see why Wikipedia has a Wikiproject for LGBT studies while fellow wikipedians seek to eliminate articles on LGBT studies. Seems counterintuitive. We should be expanding these pages instead. Destitute 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs sourced, if it is to be expanded. I encourage any editor to think twice before readding unsourced material to a BLP. UnitAnode 03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought far more than twice about this issue. Deleting verifiable content willy-nilly for lack of citations is very destructive to the encyclopedia, and does not accord with any policy or guideline. I have not added any material. I have restored material that was improperly deleted. In this case it happens to be sourced material - a claim that a person wrote a book is sourced to the book itself, and can easily be verified. Per WP:BRD, a bold blanking of content can be rejected, and it is up to the person proposing the edit to establish consensus. The status quo is that it stays in. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
