Uroš_Pinterič – It's possible to read this debate in two ways: either as "consensus to endorse" the decision, with Colcody2000, DGG and Unscintillating dissenting; or a generous closer might read it as "no consensus to overturn". Either reading has the same result, so it's not necessary to decide which obtains. The outcome of this debate is that the article will remain a redlink. In the event that substantial new sources about Mr Pinterič become available in future, these sources may be brought back to deletion review for a fresh discussion about their merits.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
no consensus Colcody2000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] The page in question was deleted despite weak argumentation on the side of editors, nonresponsiveness to the well-argumented reasons to keep the article and two-day no response from the person who actually deleted the article. Consensus was far from reached, it was simple overvote by an argument which was continuously disputed with content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D Measures of notability are different, contextual, the article was well referenced with independent sources. I am not disputing the need for constant update and improvement. But i am disputing the consensus (since debate was done in the sense delete for No notability versus long explanations on a need for contextualization). Unless the AfD review shall be done on numerous articles about scholars of similar ranking, the article in question shall be restored. In any case, there are two elements to consensus: ability to reach the agreement and need to have a discussion. None of them was achieved. Delete argumentation was technical and out of the scope. Link to the request for restoration to the "deletor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton#Colcody2000_.28talk.29_12:12.2C_21_January_2017_.28UTC.29_deletation_of_Uro.C5.A1_Pinteri.C4.8D_article Endorse Suggest speedy closing this as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. With the exception of the nominator, who is a WP:SPA, the debate was uninamous, reasonably well attended, and cited numerous policy-based reasons for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] This is what i am disputing, next to nominator there were 3 other participants, with technical argumentation and no content (4 is far from well attended), and calling on policies wich already incorporate the clause that they should be taken with some reasonable amount of reservation is far from argumentation.Colcody2000 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] 4-5 is marginally above average for an AFD actually. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The arguments for keeping the article are both non-standard and were not accepted by the folks in that AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Problem of standardisation is lack of understanding of the specifics and question of judgement ability of "folks in AfD" - because "folks in AfD" showed very little contextual thinking. And this is happening also now, and this what the process of revision should not be. Technically, arguments of different (non-standard) nature should be exposed (for or against). To help you out a bit, obviously, i have little experience with doing things on Wiki, so i usually use wrong - non-tecnical language, but for sure i understand positive approach towards articles/information (where non-malicious attitude shall be respected, in combination with some relevance and no advertising style of writing) in opposition to technicist negative selection (which is still questionable in result), where rather anonymous group of people defines what is notable (even if irrelevant). BTW: what is then the ruling in the case if some person (assume notable - Nobel prize winner) requires never ever to appear (or his/her knowldge -e.g. theory) on Wiki? (just asking)Colcody2000 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep~~ - unless series of same level or worse cases (in the sense of article organisation as well as notability according to the general opposition) shall be questioned: - article is about someone, fairly unknown, much worse documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Matth%C3%A4us and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus-Michael_Mallmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katra_Zajc , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juraj_Maru%C5%A1iak So now I am calling double standards here. Colcody2000 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Your nomination here already indicates you want the article restored. Please do not bold-prefix any subsequent comments. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The purpose of deletion review is to call attention to and resolve failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue to make new arguments (or repeat old ones) that have or ought to have been made at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Relist for fuller discussion. The question of how to evaluate academics who work in countries with a lesser-known academic system has been controversial here. In the case of those who work on the same research topics as do those in the principal countries, the rule has been that they are to be judged by an international standard, but even so we tend to make some allowances. But it's not that clear with respect to those who work on topics of national interest only, because they will publish primarily in national journals, and get refeerred to by n other national journals, not the international journals that are the base of SCI. We're supposed to have equal coverage worldwide, but we're using an indicator that greatly favors some nations over others. Normally, for national topics in other fields we ask for national sources--local sources to a particular city aren't enough, but international sources from other countries are not required. We should therefore judge him in relation to others in his field in his own country; iy is enough to be an academic influence there--it doesn't have to be worldwide. Any decision based on an inaccurate or debatable interpretation of guidelines can suitably be called into question here. Any result that appears to be wrong for any reason can be called into question here; an admin closing an afd is supposed to make a reasonable decision, and it's not reasonable to get the wrong result. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] If you think policy should be changed to permit "any result that appears to be wrong for any reason" to be listed here, feel free to open a discussion and attempt to gather a consensus to change it at a relevant talk page. However, as it stands, what you have written is your opinion of what policy should be; I've asked you many times before not to misrepresent it as policy, and I do so again. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] yes, we have disagreed on this for many years. Actual practice usually matches the way I've said it. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- There is no way this discussion could have been closed differently. It was well attended and the arguments were well grounded in policy. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] The strength of argument was not resolved, so it was premature to close after one week. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Relist The absence of a response from the closing admin leaves editors to view the strength of argument as it stands, which is not resolved. The delete !votes primarily have one comment, which is that the GS citation metrics are low; and countered neither the point that they lacked subject matter expertise in Slovenian academics, nor the points made that support notability for Slovenia. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] There are no relevant sources and this person doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. You don't need to be a subject area expert to understand sources. Now maybe this is an article we should have for some reason, but I don't think the nom has given a reason that holds water even if we took the claims at face value. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry for interfering again from the position of the person, whose article is judged (tecnically if we are sticlers, i just tried to make it somehow "normal", since I am not original author, but here is kind invitation to check few things: my argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D with some clarification regarding measured position of a person in question regarding the country specifics and field specifics. Additionally, in fact you need to be bit of an expert to know sources - 1. to recognise that not every "scientist" is able to publish anything with major international publishers (i understand that this is not enough as the only argument), 2. not every academic author at age under 40 has over 200 publications (unfortunately the source is in Slovenian language), with reasonable share of articles in impacted journals (for the rest of the argumentation in this field please check the deletion debate). Response to Stifle - it is not about new arguments, it is about old arguments, which were ignored/overlooked. (However, I do apologise for messing up the code - I am obviously not too good with it). the new argument: regarding the WP:ACADEMIC: In independent institutions called faculties (in some countries they are out of the University shelter - dean is highest rank academic position and vice-dean is the second one. And chair of the supervisory board is pretty much like chair of the board of directors (in the business world)- positions that person in the deleted article held or holds. and are under WP:ACADEMIC, considered to be relevant. This is why, some understanding of sources and the context is needed for taking any decision. And Stifle, please don't get me wrong, but I am trying to provide information on which the decision should be taken, and i am trying to explain why i believe deletion was wrong decision (i see desperate need to do so, since short dismissal of the issue by 5 words are too simple and shallow solution - and i believe it is my right and duty to protect the article (otherwise, i wouldn't even care to try to fix it) and to convince you that article is worth keeping - in order to do so i need to write more than just simple citation of certain policy.Colcody2000 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] As the closing admin, I don't have much of a rebuttal except to say that consensus among uninvolved users was clear. DGG and others may have perfectly valid points about our shortcomings in how we judge the notability of professors in non-English speaking nations, but anything other than a "delete" close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE on my part. As previously noted, given how many AfDs are relisted two and three times with no comments, I'd like to avoid at all costs relisting debates where an outcome has been solidly determined. – Juliancolton \| ^Talk 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] If i may suggest (based on my previous explanations (in the AfD discussion as well as here) and to save some issues (if i got it correctly based on what Juliancolton finally expressed) - I suggested that Juliancolton, based on the aforementioned explanation (regarding the WP:ACADEMIC mix (vice-dean, chair of supervisory board, Slovenian positioning in the field of political science, publication presence, etc. - which all leads to relative notability decides on: overturning the previous decision - based on arguments presented. His decision can be supported by the fact of WP:ATADR arguments which were supporting deletion without incorporating the information in article itself as well as in the debate presented in AfD. To recap the technical procedure: i was trying to respond at AfD discussion - with very little discussion and actual response to my comments, article was deleted in very timely manner, According to protocol, i tried to resolve the issue with the deleting person (i was ignored), now i see finally some talk (which should also to my imagination happened before), where my arguments predominantly dismissed in content as well as in process perspective. Instead of asking me to supplement your missing information (on the fact over the independent faculties leadership,etc.) and serve as contributor to the certain blank field, you are predominantly defending the deleted position of the article, which created discomfort in what you call current consensus (far from that i call article 100% proper, but for sure enough grounded in WP:ACADEMIC. Calling on wiki policies works only under knowing also the meaning of certain elements (like relative position of the dean in university vs independent education institution). I am not debating the policy itself here - but i am saying that policy was wrongly applied due to ignorance of particular situation Colcody2000 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] 'Endorse Per RoySmith ZettaComposer (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Arguments appear sound. One WP:SPA doesn't agree. Two editors would like to discuss a loosening of WP:PROF, fair enough but this, or a relisted AfD on a single early career academic are not the places for it. WT:PROF is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] the one who doesn't agree is constantly trying to prove that at all stages EXISTING policies were ignored (argumentation read above) as well as the "cultural" context and comparable entries, which all can be the reason for overturning the decision. So, I am trying to provide the argument for overturning the decision on the level of content as well as on the level of existing practice of keeping similar ranking articles (often with weaker sources supporting the article). ADDITIONALLY i call upon this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)/Precedents (by the already taken decision on similar cases, article shall be kept (under average publication (despite this one is insulting), under organisation of conferences (which is my mistake not to expose it), under notability within the country (which is systematically overlooked despite 2 editors see this as possible case of notability...(it is the rules that i was not involved in, it is decisions that i did not participate in, but still i believe they are giving me the ground for requestion to overturn the decision of AfD and to undelete the article. Colcody2000 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] User:SmokeyJoe, In 2012, you wanted to gut WP:N of its basic definition, diff. Here we see what was intended in 2012, to argue that only previously documented paths to define notability can be argued at AfD. But if a topic is "worthy of notice", there is no requirement that there be a documented precedent. WP:N is a guideline, and it is independent of WP:PROF. There is no need for a discussion at WT:PROF for this AfD or for this DRV. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Then, as now, I consider the notion "worthy of notice" to be confusing and when push comes to shove, irrelevant. What matters is whether the subject/topic has been noticed, meaning commented on, in independent reliable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to make decisions of worthiness. Instead, Wikipedia should cover what others already cover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] The problem IMO is that because you are not working from fundamentals, you are having trouble in assessing a novel situation, and are falling back on truisms, this one being WP:GNG. Notability for a novel situation doesn't mean that it is Wikipedians making the decision. Notability requires evidence in reliable sources of attention to the topic. Reliable evidence is reliable, even if the source is not independent. Thus if the school said that a person was a Dean (meaning in this context the highest academic administrator), that would satisfy WP:PROF, and would not be based on "comments" and is not from an independent source. The case here is the idea of Slovenian notability, where IMO the case has been made that such exists or could exist. According to publication activity in the national context the person in question is ranked (on this day) on 7th (out of first 100) position among Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies, Communication studies and narrow political science) (leaving behind many full professors) based on publication outcome, shares 11th position on number of articles in web of Science, and is on 33th position (competing with the people who are in academia much longer time than him) based on number of quotations without auto quotations (info can daily change based on new publications entered to the system - source: SICRIS/WOS). If the data is retrieved for narrow field of political science (politology) his ranking is higher. 4th by publication scoring, 2nd by number of WOS publications, 10th by number of quotations without auto quotations, and 7th based on h-index. He was present in national media - despite these mentions are under actual relevance, since commenting the daily events is far from the actual work. Where has this argument been refuted, that this is reliable evidence that shows attention to the topic from the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell)? Unscintillating (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] For me, "Wikipedia covers subjects already covered by others" is not a truism but a statement of principle, one that underlies the GNG, and more importantly is a principle enshrined in the core content policy WP:NOR (specifically WP:PSTS). WP:N is a special case of WP:PSTS, it is not a harsher version of WP:V. Exception to the above comes from arguments of completeness (eg "we have an article on nearly every element, so let's include the last obscure two for completeness") or navigation/interconnectivity reasons (eg lots of incoming wikilinks and no suitable merge target). The case, as you quote above, sound perhaps a little too specific. Does Wikipedia already cover the top 10 or so "Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies)". I think I checked and found his h-index to be 6, which does not impress. I don't see anything worthy of being called a "novel situation", he is a non-leading academic in a very small country. I am not inherently opposed to this biography, but here at DRV it has to be endorsed because it could not have been closed any other way. I really do not see the point of further discussion. There may be hope in pursuing userfication and improvement by locating more and better sources. I think it is hopeless, largely on the basis of the little I find in searching for sources, and as the rest of mainspace contains only one passing mention, not counting the reference to his publication in Sinicization of Tibet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Dear SmokeyJoe if this is your problem - i will make sure that the guy will be properly, significantly and validly quoted at each possible position to which his texts are contributing (regarding H-index: "The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a full professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography.[14]" via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index. Technically he has an almost double average score of LSE political scientists average. (Stifle this is not WP:BLUDGEON - this is called argument - but yes i agree that i stand on te position against WP:LACK - still i agree that this discussion should be done earlier - unfortunately i was the only one from the group here participating in discussion there.) Comment: User:Colcody2000 is counselled not to WP:BLUDGEON the debate. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment: most of the debate participants(excluding 2 or 3, who see things bit more in depth) are advised to consult WP:RUSH, WP:BATHWATER, WP:DOUBT, WP:LACK, WP:LAWYER, etc. If this would be done at a proper time (starting with discussion on talk page of already deleted article, things could be potentially clarifed there (where they actually belong) - , the debate could be resolved better (but at least the topic is getting some attention), or not even taking place.Colcody2000 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Uroš_Pinterič – It's possible to read this debate in two ways: either as "consensus to endorse" the decision, with Colcody2000, DGG and Unscintillating dissenting; or a generous closer might read it as "no consensus to overturn". Either reading has the same result, so it's not necessary to decide which obtains. The outcome of this debate is that the article will remain a redlink. In the event that substantial new sources about Mr Pinterič become available in future, these sources may be brought back to deletion review for a fresh discussion about their merits.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

no consensus Colcody2000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question was deleted despite weak argumentation on the side of editors, nonresponsiveness to the well-argumented reasons to keep the article and two-day no response from the person who actually deleted the article. Consensus was far from reached, it was simple overvote by an argument which was continuously disputed with content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D Measures of notability are different, contextual, the article was well referenced with independent sources. I am not disputing the need for constant update and improvement. But i am disputing the consensus (since debate was done in the sense delete for No notability versus long explanations on a need for contextualization). Unless the AfD review shall be done on numerous articles about scholars of similar ranking, the article in question shall be restored. In any case, there are two elements to consensus: ability to reach the agreement and need to have a discussion. None of them was achieved. Delete argumentation was technical and out of the scope. Link to the request for restoration to the "deletor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton#Colcody2000_.28talk.29_12:12.2C_21_January_2017_.28UTC.29_deletation_of_Uro.C5.A1_Pinteri.C4.8D_article

Endorse Suggest speedy closing this as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. With the exception of the nominator, who is a WP:SPA, the debate was uninamous, reasonably well attended, and cited numerous policy-based reasons for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what i am disputing, next to nominator there were 3 other participants, with technical argumentation and no content (4 is far from well attended), and calling on policies wich already incorporate the clause that they should be taken with some reasonable amount of reservation is far from argumentation.Colcody2000 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 4-5 is marginally above average for an AFD actually. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The arguments for keeping the article are both non-standard and were not accepted by the folks in that AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of standardisation is lack of understanding of the specifics and question of judgement ability of "folks in AfD" - because "folks in AfD" showed very little contextual thinking. And this is happening also now, and this what the process of revision should not be. Technically, arguments of different (non-standard) nature should be exposed (for or against). To help you out a bit, obviously, i have little experience with doing things on Wiki, so i usually use wrong - non-tecnical language, but for sure i understand positive approach towards articles/information (where non-malicious attitude shall be respected, in combination with some relevance and no advertising style of writing) in opposition to technicist negative selection (which is still questionable in result), where rather anonymous group of people defines what is notable (even if irrelevant). BTW: what is then the ruling in the case if some person (assume notable - Nobel prize winner) requires never ever to appear (or his/her knowldge -e.g. theory) on Wiki? (just asking)Colcody2000 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - unless series of same level or worse cases (in the sense of article organisation as well as notability according to the general opposition) shall be questioned: - article is about someone, fairly unknown, much worse documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Matth%C3%A4us and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus-Michael_Mallmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katra_Zajc , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juraj_Maru%C5%A1iak So now I am calling double standards here. Colcody2000 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination here already indicates you want the article restored. Please do not bold-prefix any subsequent comments. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The purpose of deletion review is to call attention to and resolve failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue to make new arguments (or repeat old ones) that have or ought to have been made at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for fuller discussion. The question of how to evaluate academics who work in countries with a lesser-known academic system has been controversial here. In the case of those who work on the same research topics as do those in the principal countries, the rule has been that they are to be judged by an international standard, but even so we tend to make some allowances. But it's not that clear with respect to those who work on topics of national interest only, because they will publish primarily in national journals, and get refeerred to by n other national journals, not the international journals that are the base of SCI. We're supposed to have equal coverage worldwide, but we're using an indicator that greatly favors some nations over others. Normally, for national topics in other fields we ask for national sources--local sources to a particular city aren't enough, but international sources from other countries are not required. We should therefore judge him in relation to others in his field in his own country; iy is enough to be an academic influence there--it doesn't have to be worldwide.

Any decision based on an inaccurate or debatable interpretation of guidelines can suitably be called into question here. Any result that appears to be wrong for any reason can be called into question here; an admin closing an afd is supposed to make a reasonable decision, and it's not reasonable to get the wrong result. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think policy should be changed to permit "any result that appears to be wrong for any reason" to be listed here, feel free to open a discussion and attempt to gather a consensus to change it at a relevant talk page. However, as it stands, what you have written is your opinion of what policy should be; I've asked you many times before not to misrepresent it as policy, and I do so again. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we have disagreed on this for many years. Actual practice usually matches the way I've said it. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- There is no way this discussion could have been closed differently. It was well attended and the arguments were well grounded in policy. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of argument was not resolved, so it was premature to close after one week. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The absence of a response from the closing admin leaves editors to view the strength of argument as it stands, which is not resolved.
The delete !votes primarily have one comment, which is that the GS citation metrics are low; and countered neither the point that they lacked subject matter expertise in Slovenian academics, nor the points made that support notability for Slovenia. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no relevant sources and this person doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. You don't need to be a subject area expert to understand sources. Now maybe this is an article we should have for some reason, but I don't think the nom has given a reason that holds water even if we took the claims at face value. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry for interfering again from the position of the person, whose article is judged (tecnically if we are sticlers, i just tried to make it somehow "normal", since I am not original author, but here is kind invitation to check few things: my argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D with some clarification regarding measured position of a person in question regarding the country specifics and field specifics. Additionally, in fact you need to be bit of an expert to know sources - 1. to recognise that not every "scientist" is able to publish anything with major international publishers (i understand that this is not enough as the only argument), 2. not every academic author at age under 40 has over 200 publications (unfortunately the source is in Slovenian language), with reasonable share of articles in impacted journals (for the rest of the argumentation in this field please check the deletion debate). Response to Stifle - it is not about new arguments, it is about old arguments, which were ignored/overlooked. (However, I do apologise for messing up the code - I am obviously not too good with it). the new argument: regarding the WP:ACADEMIC: In independent institutions called faculties (in some countries they are out of the University shelter - dean is highest rank academic position and vice-dean is the second one. And chair of the supervisory board is pretty much like chair of the board of directors (in the business world)- positions that person in the deleted article held or holds. and are under WP:ACADEMIC, considered to be relevant. This is why, some understanding of sources and the context is needed for taking any decision. And Stifle, please don't get me wrong, but I am trying to provide information on which the decision should be taken, and i am trying to explain why i believe deletion was wrong decision (i see desperate need to do so, since short dismissal of the issue by 5 words are too simple and shallow solution - and i believe it is my right and duty to protect the article (otherwise, i wouldn't even care to try to fix it) and to convince you that article is worth keeping - in order to do so i need to write more than just simple citation of certain policy.Colcody2000 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, I don't have much of a rebuttal except to say that consensus among uninvolved users was clear. DGG and others may have perfectly valid points about our shortcomings in how we judge the notability of professors in non-English speaking nations, but anything other than a "delete" close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE on my part. As previously noted, given how many AfDs are relisted two and three times with no comments, I'd like to avoid at all costs relisting debates where an outcome has been solidly determined. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If i may suggest (based on my previous explanations (in the AfD discussion as well as here) and to save some issues (if i got it correctly based on what Juliancolton finally expressed) - I suggested that Juliancolton, based on the aforementioned explanation (regarding the WP:ACADEMIC mix (vice-dean, chair of supervisory board, Slovenian positioning in the field of political science, publication presence, etc. - which all leads to relative notability decides on: overturning the previous decision - based on arguments presented. His decision can be supported by the fact of WP:ATADR arguments which were supporting deletion without incorporating the information in article itself as well as in the debate presented in AfD. To recap the technical procedure: i was trying to respond at AfD discussion - with very little discussion and actual response to my comments, article was deleted in very timely manner, According to protocol, i tried to resolve the issue with the deleting person (i was ignored), now i see finally some talk (which should also to my imagination happened before), where my arguments predominantly dismissed in content as well as in process perspective. Instead of asking me to supplement your missing information (on the fact over the independent faculties leadership,etc.) and serve as contributor to the certain blank field, you are predominantly defending the deleted position of the article, which created discomfort in what you call current consensus (far from that i call article 100% proper, but for sure enough grounded in WP:ACADEMIC. Calling on wiki policies works only under knowing also the meaning of certain elements (like relative position of the dean in university vs independent education institution). I am not debating the policy itself here - but i am saying that policy was wrongly applied due to ignorance of particular situation Colcody2000 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse Per RoySmith ZettaComposer (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Arguments appear sound. One WP:SPA doesn't agree. Two editors would like to discuss a loosening of WP:PROF, fair enough but this, or a relisted AfD on a single early career academic are not the places for it. WT:PROF is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- the one who doesn't agree is constantly trying to prove that at all stages EXISTING policies were ignored (argumentation read above) as well as the "cultural" context and comparable entries, which all can be the reason for overturning the decision. So, I am trying to provide the argument for overturning the decision on the level of content as well as on the level of existing practice of keeping similar ranking articles (often with weaker sources supporting the article). ADDITIONALLY i call upon this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)/Precedents (by the already taken decision on similar cases, article shall be kept (under average publication (despite this one is insulting), under organisation of conferences (which is my mistake not to expose it), under notability within the country (which is systematically overlooked despite 2 editors see this as possible case of notability...(it is the rules that i was not involved in, it is decisions that i did not participate in, but still i believe they are giving me the ground for requestion to overturn the decision of AfD and to undelete the article. Colcody2000 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SmokeyJoe, In 2012, you wanted to gut WP:N of its basic definition, diff. Here we see what was intended in 2012, to argue that only previously documented paths to define notability can be argued at AfD. But if a topic is "worthy of notice", there is no requirement that there be a documented precedent. WP:N is a guideline, and it is independent of WP:PROF. There is no need for a discussion at WT:PROF for this AfD or for this DRV. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, as now, I consider the notion "worthy of notice" to be confusing and when push comes to shove, irrelevant. What matters is whether the subject/topic has been noticed, meaning commented on, in independent reliable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to make decisions of worthiness. Instead, Wikipedia should cover what others already cover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem IMO is that because you are not working from fundamentals, you are having trouble in assessing a novel situation, and are falling back on truisms, this one being WP:GNG. Notability for a novel situation doesn't mean that it is Wikipedians making the decision. Notability requires evidence in reliable sources of attention to the topic. Reliable evidence is reliable, even if the source is not independent. Thus if the school said that a person was a Dean (meaning in this context the highest academic administrator), that would satisfy WP:PROF, and would not be based on "comments" and is not from an independent source.
      The case here is the idea of Slovenian notability, where IMO the case has been made that such exists or could exist.
      According to publication activity in the national context the person in question is ranked (on this day) on 7th (out of first 100) position among Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies, Communication studies and narrow political science) (leaving behind many full professors) based on publication outcome, shares 11th position on number of articles in web of Science, and is on 33th position (competing with the people who are in academia much longer time than him) based on number of quotations without auto quotations (info can daily change based on new publications entered to the system - source: SICRIS/WOS). If the data is retrieved for narrow field of political science (politology) his ranking is higher. 4th by publication scoring, 2nd by number of WOS publications, 10th by number of quotations without auto quotations, and 7th based on h-index. He was present in national media - despite these mentions are under actual relevance, since commenting the daily events is far from the actual work.
      Where has this argument been refuted, that this is reliable evidence that shows attention to the topic from the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell)? Unscintillating (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - For me, "Wikipedia covers subjects already covered by others" is not a truism but a statement of principle, one that underlies the GNG, and more importantly is a principle enshrined in the core content policy WP:NOR (specifically WP:PSTS). WP:N is a special case of WP:PSTS, it is not a harsher version of WP:V.
        Exception to the above comes from arguments of completeness (eg "we have an article on nearly every element, so let's include the last obscure two for completeness") or navigation/interconnectivity reasons (eg lots of incoming wikilinks and no suitable merge target).
        The case, as you quote above, sound perhaps a little too specific.
        Does Wikipedia already cover the top 10 or so "Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies)". I think I checked and found his h-index to be 6, which does not impress. I don't see anything worthy of being called a "novel situation", he is a non-leading academic in a very small country.
        I am not inherently opposed to this biography, but here at DRV it has to be endorsed because it could not have been closed any other way. I really do not see the point of further discussion. There may be hope in pursuing userfication and improvement by locating more and better sources. I think it is hopeless, largely on the basis of the little I find in searching for sources, and as the rest of mainspace contains only one passing mention, not counting the reference to his publication in Sinicization of Tibet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dear SmokeyJoe if this is your problem - i will make sure that the guy will be properly, significantly and validly quoted at each possible position to which his texts are contributing (regarding H-index: "The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a full professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography.[14]" via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index. Technically he has an almost double average score of LSE political scientists average. (Stifle this is not WP:BLUDGEON - this is called argument - but yes i agree that i stand on te position against WP:LACK - still i agree that this discussion should be done earlier - unfortunately i was the only one from the group here participating in discussion there.)
Comment: User:Colcody2000 is counselled not to WP:BLUDGEON the debate. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: most of the debate participants(excluding 2 or 3, who see things bit more in depth) are advised to consult WP:RUSH, WP:BATHWATER, WP:DOUBT, WP:LACK, WP:LAWYER, etc. If this would be done at a proper time (starting with discussion on talk page of already deleted article, things could be potentially clarifed there (where they actually belong) - , the debate could be resolved better (but at least the topic is getting some attention), or not even taking place.Colcody2000 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.