Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izabela Wagner

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Wagner

Izabela Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

None of the criteria of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Three published books with multiple published reviews each is a pass of
  WP:GNG. Her rank is mis-stated in the nomination (she's associate, not assistant) but that's largely irrelevant; it's her accomplishments, not her rank, that would make her notable. Because she's in a book-based field rather than a journal-based field, citation counts and h-index are also largely irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per David Eppstein. --hroest 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said already,
  WP:NPROF in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Came here despite my usual avoidance of non-Scopus-amenable fields to make the NAUTHOR reviews point David Eppstein mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have said before me, more than enough reviews of more than enough books to meet
  WP:NPROF is irrelevant. Samsmachado (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:AUTHOR, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per David Eppstein. -- Wlod (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A strict reading of GNG/NAUTHOR/PROF would make her borderline, but I fully agree those policies need to be relaxed a bit. A strong keep here and in several other cases could be used to adjust the policies themselves. And for what it is worth, I think that an encyclopedia should have entries about such people, much more so than about some minor soccer player who played in one qualifying match for NSPORT and about whom nothing is known about outside few basic resume facts and the match statistics... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she's a significant author.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant author with published works. Meets criteria for
  WP:AUTHOR and is interesting / remarkable enough to be of note. A keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (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.