Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frančiška Trobevšek Drobnak
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 05:59, 6 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. JForget 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frančiška Trobevšek Drobnak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article's subject appears to fail WP:PROF, prod declined, so bringing it here. All eyes welcome. Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vice-dean doesn't rise to WP:PROF#C6, and there's no evidence of academic impact that would pass C1: Google scholar doesn't even find her publications, and although Google books does have some hits for her they're not enough to convince me. I found one hit in Google news, this story, but (judging from Google translate) it doesn't seem to have any content about her, it just has a paragraph of her opinions concerning multilingualism. Without evidence for passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG, we should not keep this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per David Eppstein. Not enough to show passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (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.