Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantia Koutouki


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Konstantia Koutouki

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF--publications consist of a few articles and book chapter, but according to Google Scholar, none of them have been cited more than 7 times, which is negligible in the social sciences. The statement under publications that there are "books" is misleading--it refers to chapters in books published by other people, and these could even less for notability than journal articles.

There does not appear to be references for any other basis of notability  DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. Wait,, I know we don't have written guidelines, and things vary per discipline, but in mine a chapter in an edited volume counts pretty much just like a journal article--at least for T&P, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ":depends on the university. My last would count anything, as long as it was peer-reviewed, and most book chapters are not. they're published by invitation of the editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, with regret. I looked for information and found only the one report of a round table that I added to the article. I was thinking of PRODding it myself, or redirecting to Centre for International Sustainable Development Law. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable person I would like the offer some commments in support of keeping the page. This person is the Presedent of the ILA-Canada, a professor of law, and executive director of a think tank. She has been widley recognized by her peers in international law through the nomination process to represent the ILA. She is also highley active working with Indigenious peoples globally. Journalests rarely follow these types of people but their work is clearly respected by thier peers. For Wikipedia to be of utmost use, I would hope for flesability to allow for the work of these types of leaders to be highlighted. These are the people fighting for the rights of future generations in thier work and that alone makes them notable. When thier peers in a highly respected orginization like ILA elect them to leadership roles this should be given considerable weight. I do hope you can keep this page to encourage others to both pursue this work, but also to provide them a means to learn about these global leaders who may not recieve attention in the press. Her publications are peer reviewed and come from the top publishers like Cambridge University Press. I understand the guidelines you have set out for this platform, and from my interpritation she fit those. Thank you for your consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanO777 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment SeanO777 raises a good point. Her presidency of the International Law Association Canada might cause her to meet PROF#6. Catrìona (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, It's a branch of the International Law Association, not a separate organization.
 * And Sean, you're asking that we give great coverage for people who are working for "rights of future generations"  or  causes we generally support than we would otherwise.  This is a direct contradiction of one of our most basic foundational principle, WP:NPOV,  and therefore totally irrelevant here. That you are making this argument, and adding articles on other associated people, presumably with the same rationale, indicates that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest in that you are trying to use WP for advocacy.  DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating anything. I added these points to support the discussion on notability - and only that. This person is notable in the eyes of her peers in international law. The factors on future generations etc was to simply note the importance of inclusiveness in your guidelines on notability. Scholars who work in this field on first glance may seem to not fit the notability guidelines - as we see indicated by your peers. I was highlighting why this person is notable. Nothing more. I was under the impression this exersize was a discussion to streghten the platform as a whole. I was indicating that this information fit the guidleines you have indicated. Lastly, the contribution was written in a nutral tone. My possition that she fits your guidelines does not change the nutrality of the information provided. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanO777 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you are, when you say "These are the people fighting for the rights of future generations in thier work and that alone makes them notable." That is not what notability depends on. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User SeanO777 has admitted COI, and paid contributing . ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

--> To be clear, I was only suggesting a line of reasoning which supports the conclusion that her work fits the notability criteria. IE - "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This was my point. I simply put forward this information to highlight the relevance and notability of this scholar. The point on future generations was to only highlight a potential gap in your guidelines whereby scholars doing great work and receiving the highest recognition by peers are deemed not notable based on the criteria listed. As I stated before, based on a plain reading of your guidelines, this subject fit point 6 and 7 if not others as well. Thank you again for your consideration. Have a nice day unsigned comment by SeanO777 
 * I take 's questions seriously, regardless of COI. Different fields have different standards. It may not be obvious from the name of a society how important it is, and it is not obvious to what extent the presidency of a very narrow specialty society is significant, or of a national or state branch of a larger society. We need to consider all the evidence.  And Sean is quite correct to ask about whether we go by the written guidelines--and the answer is that they all have borderline cases that require interpretation, and we always have the option of using WP:IAR either to accept or reject an article.  Otherwise we wouldn't need AfD in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * delete I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage I think is needed to show she meets the GNG. When I looked in Google Scholar, her citation counts seem quite low given her areas of interest are climate change and indigenous peoples--both of which are "hot" topics these days.Sandals1 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (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.