Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danijela Stefanović

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danijela Stefanović[edit]

[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)

Assistant professor, appears to fail the general notability guideline and the SNG for academics. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Philosophy, and Serbia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Greece, and Egypt. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Google Scholar profile:[1]

- Worldcat holdings - 79 records. Many are for collections of papers from conferences. Other are dissertations she supervised. About 20 are her books and collectively they're held in about 400 libraries with holding ranging from 88 for one book down to 1. I recognize at least 3+ different languages; some of the lowest holdings are in Serbian.

- - Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics notes:

"For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. (Google Scholar is not totally irrelevant in many cases, for it now does include citations to books—it's worth a look). In these fields one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

She has a sparser article in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, arz:دانييلا ستيفانوفيتش, probably because of her Egyptology work.

I'm just a muggle with this stuff, I leave it to someone more academically informed to interpret these results.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search in JSTOR shows that her books are being reviewed in respected journals and her work overall is cited significantly above the norm for scholars in ancient history. It's not a slam dunk pass in every way but meets WP:NPROF for impact of work. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mscuthbert, I found only one review of a book of hers on JSTOR, quite a bit short of what I'm looking for in WP:NAUTHOR. Did you find more? The citation record looks like a good start, but WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I found and added to the article three reviews of two books. That's above threshold for WP:AUTHOR for me, but only barely. This appears to be a book field rather than a journal field, so the low citation counts in Google Scholar are not problematic (although they also do not contribute to notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like David Eppstein, I was leaning to the view that, if notable, it was as an author. Based on the above, I agree it is a weak keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - per David Eppstein, based on book reviews she just barely passes WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 26 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.