Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronika Podgoršek

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Podgoršek

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability under either WP:NPROF or WP:NBASIC. Seems to just run her own practice and do self-promotional things. Mason (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Slovenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability apparent anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Definitely not under WP:PROF -- has some assertion of notability under GNG and WP:NBASIC but the sources are extremely weak (this was the only one that was actually about her and it is not in depth [1]). I have next-to-no linguistic ability to help with this and happy to be persuaded otherwise, but on the face of it, seems to be a too-soon, not enough. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Non-English sources indicate WP:GNG.--A09 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you describe the sources for those who are English speakers? That would be helpful, as my google translating is definitely not capturing anything remotely related to nuance. Mason (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please specify sources that establish GNG since other editors disagree with the assessment of Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the good non-English sources mentioned were never shown. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2023 (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.