Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esad Kurtović


 * 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. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Esad Kurtović

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very accomplished, lots of published material, but very anemic citation count (highest is 35). Can't see where he meets any of the other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - As I explained in edit-summary when removing prod template, and subsequently in TP, BLP article on academic E.Kurtović is very important in context of Bosnian historiography, so I really think that I have valid reason to contest this PROD nomination. Beside the argument postulated in my edit-summary, I also do not see violation of criteria given in WP:GNG and especially in WP:NACADEMIC - an explanation given by nominator surely contains a bit of contradictory claim, where "accomplished" academic, which Kurtović certainly is, both accomplished and very prominent in his own academic environment, somehow fails to meet aforementioned WP:NACADEMIC. Also postulated in edit-summary is my belief that Google Scholar citation count is not decisive criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, as such would render too many prominent scholars working in small and very small, especially non-English language, academic milieus and in a fields and subjects of exclusively local significance and on specific topics, unfairly omitted from the project - Kurtović is very prominent Medievalist in Balkan and in particular Bosnian-Herzegovinian context, so I am sorry but I can't agree with this nomination and I feel that I need to contest it. As for "anemic" references, well, that was never the reason for article deletion, even when lacking completely we deal with that issue with template messages, unless article is obviously failing on notability.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep Seems to be notable if he wrote a three-book volume on the subject and has an Authority Control listing, which means he's been indexed in worldwide libraries. However, the article has a list of over 60 publications/articles/whatever they are, without telling much about the author. Would need a rewrite to be kept. Would be best to delete and start over with better sources, not simply provide a rambling list of items. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable through his publications and accomplishments, even though there are many improvements needed.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep He has several notable works in his bibliography.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.