Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubravka Stojanović

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubravka Stojanović

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

Delete: -- has not reached threshold of notability for an acadmeician or historian for a standalone article. Just too soon, I reckon. Quis separabit? 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- she seems to have published a lot, but the only source is the webpage of a association where she is a co-founder.--Mondiad (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some awards she has won. There are plenty of other references out there in languages I can't read. -- haminoon (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's reasonable examples of her being quoted/cited on Google Scholar under her Cyrillic spelling as well as English spelling. There may well be sources under other orthographic systems. Google News also has a fair few hits (including what appears to be non-trivial articles). (Pinging User:Antidiskriminator as active listed Serbian translator). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat shows a few edited (by others) volumes having reasonable holdings, but the many books written by her are all right around a dozen holdings each, which is pretty low by PROF standards. A few news-pieces, as mentioned above, but which fall far short of GNG. (Parenthetical note: it seems the argument of academics being notable via "punditry" is being advanced more frequently nowadays e.g. a recent AfD, but such commentary is within their routine activity scope.) Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The low number of holdings would be because her books are writen in Serbian. -- haminoon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. The corollary, however, is that sufficiently important books are translated, usually at least into English. In fact, translation itself is a fairly conclusive indicator of notability. But, as far as I can tell, those books have not been translated, so we still have the problem that her work has not been widely "noted". Agricola44 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, winner of several notable awards. Article will be expanded.--Zoupan 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The awards don't establish her notability. Not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, and as Agricola44 pointed out, she doesn't pass WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 15 January 2016 (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.