Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Dolnicar

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. Sandstein 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sara Dolnicar

Sara Dolnicar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded this article because I believe it fails to meet any of the listed criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. My PROD was removed with the argument "declined prod - holds equivalent to a chair, elected as fellow to two scholarly associations", so here we are for a community discussion.

If either of the scholarly associations mentioned in the article, Austrian Society for Applied Research in Tourism and Tourism Wollongong, were what WP:ACADEMIC calls "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE)", I don't think they'd be redlinked, to put it no more strongly. Nor does the "equivalent to a chair" that the subject holds look like "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)" (WP:ACADEMIC again). The "Selected work" listed consists entirely of articles (no books) co-written with other people, which kind of throws the selection principle into doubt. I'm sorry, but it looks like a vanity article to me. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

All this coloured text formatting is distracting from what you are trying to say. Just a thought. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep she holds a professorship, which is the highest academic position available in Australian universities (named chairs are very uncommon in Australia). Her awards, such as the Ambassador of Science Award of the Republic of Slovenia, seem significant. As to the societies, the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism has been around for 67 years, while the International Academy for the Study of Tourism is younger, but I'm told is one of the more prestigious societies in the field, and limits the number of fellows to 75 (of which Dolnicar was the youngest elected). She has a h-Index of 51 and 8000+ citations, which seems to suggest that she has made a significant impact in her field. I think it is always difficult to try to evaluate academics using WP:ACADEMIC, in part because of radical differences between fields (for example, a h-Index of 51 would be a big deal in physics, but I don't know how we figure out its meaning in social sciences), but I think that when we combine academic impact, holding a chair, fellowships and awards, that there is enough there. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment her two elected fellowship/memberships would be more impressive if International Academy for the Study of Tourism and International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism were blue links and not red. PamD 12:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

While we might be able to say that having an article indicates a degree of notability, I don't think that we can say that not having an article indicates a lack of importance. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the scholarly associations she's a member of. Per Bilby, these appear to pass muster for NACADEMIC. The point about professorships in this country is also a valid one. Full disclosure: I'm a student at the university the subject works at, although in an entirely different area and have never (knowingly) had anything to do with her. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per citation counts Google Scholar Dolnicar Thsmi002 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The citation counts linked by Thsmi002 demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1, and given the news hits, possibly WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Bilby. Research professorships of this kind are rare in Australia and represent the pinnacle of academic success in the field. Perhaps there is some confusion as a researcher with the same title in the United States would not be nearly so senior. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:PROF. Hmlarson (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes notability requirements. For example, her work has been recognized by the Republic of Slovenia. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2018 (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.