Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Kotlarsky


 * 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The result was keep — nomination withdrawn‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Julia Kotlarsky

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The only mentions of them I could find online were for their own publications, and non-independent bios from, for example, the institutions they have worked at. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women,  and New Zealand. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A pass of WP:Prof on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC).
 * Question: full professor - aren't those usually notable? Also, I understand that the University of Auckland is the top-ranked university in NZ.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Full professors are not notable for holding that academic rank (see WP:Prof), but this one is notable for other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep Full professors in New Zealand are considered notable.  Schwede 66  11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per PROF-C1 on citations. -- Mvqr (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Recluse myself as creator due to being topic banned from BLPs. 19:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF but not #C5. Full professors at good research universities are often notable on other grounds (as is the case here) but are not automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. My understanding is that in Australia and New Zealand 'professor' is equivalent to distinguished professors in other countries, meaning that #C5 is met; "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". (Although having said that, I see on the Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand) page this point is flagged as dubious...) The University of Auckland promotion guidelines are that a professorial appointment is only available "where an academic staff member has demonstrated professional and academic eminence at an international level". In any event, though, she would meet #C1 criteria as she appears to be widely cited. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone has paid access to The Economist, could citation 3 in this article be verified? Without that source, the article violates WP:PRIMARY number 5. Willing to withdraw this nomination once this concern is addressed, as the consensus is leaning quite convincingly to "keep". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked up the Economist article and edited the paragraph here to reflect the specifics of what it says. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, . I think that adresses my concern. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per answers to my question above.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject seems to meet WP:PROF. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * per comments and answer to my question above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:07, 8 August 2023 (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.