Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina Bodrug-Lungu


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There are good-faith and grounded arguments for both keep and delete, and I do not find either side especially compelling (in numbers or in strength), nor do many submissions fall to be discounted for lack of policy basis. AFD has been open for a month and I do not think a further relist will achieve anything. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Valentina Bodrug-Lungu

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

Serious concerns about the subject’s notability have been raised at the article’s DYK nomination page. In essence, there is no real evidence that this individual passes WP:PROF. Those defending the nomination have made no case that she fulfills any of the criteria. They have pointed to her affiliation with an obscure NGO that seems to have only her as an employee; have mentioned “pioneering” work without any citations in support of the claim; and have pointed to some panel bios, press releases and boilerplate press quotes. None of this is remotely convincing. Where is the notability, as objectively defined by the relevant policy? — Biruitorul Talk 17:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Sexuality and gender,  and Moldova. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not seeing a citation profile that suggests notability through NPROF C1, and her appointments do not meet any other NPROF criteria. The media coverage of her is trivial or non-independent, so she does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm confused by the claim in the other discussion that she doesn't have coverage in Moldovan and related media. Because...she does. Here's some examples:
 * She also received a medal called the Glory of Labor. I don't know the importance of that or not, so someone more knowledgeable about Moldovan awards will need to inform us on that one. Silver  seren C 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The last source can be dismissed on WP:PSTS grounds, the university being her employer. As for the rest, media quotes recycling a possibly baseless description of her as an “expert” and revolving around her leadership of a phantom NGO cannot substitute for legitimate evidence of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. It is not enough to simply affirm that someone is an expert, this quality must be demonstrated via impartial sources, which must deal with the subject herself, not simply parrot her views. — Biruitorul Talk 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should be judging her using WP:PROF when it's clear her work is more focused on political and governmental outreach rather than academic publications. Also, it sounds like you're using a personal claim about her NGO and coverage of her that isn't backed up with any evidence. It sounds like no source coverage would be enough for you because you'd deem them non-impartial by the mere fact that they covered her and her work. Silver  seren C 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage of her political and governmental outreach? I mean, I see her quoted with opinions on this and that topic, in a very small number of independent sources, but none actually mentions the impact of her activities, nor credits her with any political influence. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * She also received a medal called the Glory of Labor. I don't know the importance of that or not, so someone more knowledgeable about Moldovan awards will need to inform us on that one. Silver  seren C 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The last source can be dismissed on WP:PSTS grounds, the university being her employer. As for the rest, media quotes recycling a possibly baseless description of her as an “expert” and revolving around her leadership of a phantom NGO cannot substitute for legitimate evidence of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. It is not enough to simply affirm that someone is an expert, this quality must be demonstrated via impartial sources, which must deal with the subject herself, not simply parrot her views. — Biruitorul Talk 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should be judging her using WP:PROF when it's clear her work is more focused on political and governmental outreach rather than academic publications. Also, it sounds like you're using a personal claim about her NGO and coverage of her that isn't backed up with any evidence. It sounds like no source coverage would be enough for you because you'd deem them non-impartial by the mere fact that they covered her and her work. Silver  seren C 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage of her political and governmental outreach? I mean, I see her quoted with opinions on this and that topic, in a very small number of independent sources, but none actually mentions the impact of her activities, nor credits her with any political influence. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should be judging her using WP:PROF when it's clear her work is more focused on political and governmental outreach rather than academic publications. Also, it sounds like you're using a personal claim about her NGO and coverage of her that isn't backed up with any evidence. It sounds like no source coverage would be enough for you because you'd deem them non-impartial by the mere fact that they covered her and her work. Silver  seren C 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage of her political and governmental outreach? I mean, I see her quoted with opinions on this and that topic, in a very small number of independent sources, but none actually mentions the impact of her activities, nor credits her with any political influence. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Source #1 is a routine quote/primary interview from her -- does not count towards GNG (if this was sufficient almost every single sportsman we deleted the last year would be easily refunded). #2 is her commentary as part of a panel -- does not count towards GNG as there is no SIGCOV of her. #3 is an interview with her with very little secondary coverage -- does not count towards GNG. #4 is repeating things she said with zero secondary analysis by the author -- no GNG. #5 is another interview with no secondary coverage -- no GNG. #6 is obviously out as her employer. So she definitely does not meet GNG, the only option left is NPROF C7. However, C7 requires the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. We would need quite a bit more than six quotations to get there. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Her being the subject expert for a variety of international media, along with being a subject expert on a variety of UN related media that I didn't showcase here going back 20 years, absolutely meets the requirements of C7. Silver  seren C 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources above by User:Silver seren give me the impression that she's having a real world impact as an expert, influencing media etc. Also here she is the author of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Shadow Reports several times, which (if I udnerstand correctly) are used to influence policy: https://sdgs.un.org/panelists/valentina-bodrug-lungu-46235 So I think the academic notability threshold is relevant and met. I suppose someone could counter argue that making the news a lot and writing UN reports doesn't demonstrate actual impact, it's difficult to link outputs to impact, but I think we can logically conclude that someone who is quoted by BBC and other news and the UN as an expert is notable enough for wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * C7 explicitly says a A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. It doesn't matter how prestigious the outlet quoting someone is (and of course someone who participates on UN committees will be quoted by the UN...my fellow postdoc did a stint there and is quoted several times as an expert in special reports). Being a coauthor of a report also doesn't mean anything without her being attributed (by someone completely separate from any institutions involved) specifically as a major factor in changing a particular policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable as an academic, no depth of coverage as a public figure. This article lowers the bar of notability beyond any level I've seen. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated the post on the Women in Red talk page that previously referred to the DYK Lajmmoore (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added the Order of Work Glory which is for "outstanding achievements in an individual's field of work, esteemed public activity during their career, and great contributions to the development of the Moldovan cultural, scientific, socio-economic, sporting and public spheres.", from SilverSeren's source above: seems to support notability. Pam  D  08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that around 100 people a year are given this award (in a country with a couple million people). They include retired village schoolteachers, middle school principals, high school teachers, middle school psychologists, doctors and engineers (completely random ones, that is), kindergarten directors, village mayors, choir directors and the like.
 * So no, her possession of this medal really doesn’t add to a claim of notability. — Biruitorul Talk 08:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)::
 * By that token, we should absolutely have an article on fellow recipient Alexandru Schițco, who manages the agricultural co-operative in Fălești. Dahn (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have found significant coverage in the Moldovan press, both in Romanian and Russian. See for example, , . These are far more than just passing remarks as they present her opinions and background in some detail.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second link, I tend to believe that your argument would be strengthened by leaving out reference to a propaganda arm of the Kremlin operating inside a Russian puppet state. — Biruitorul Talk 09:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite the opposite: these new sources are not just of dubious quality, but her opinion on this and that subject being vented there, or anywhere, is not an indication of her notability -- an article that would have her as the focus, that would include the independent opinions of others describing her as important -- that is what counts as notability, and this is explicit stated in the guideline (which notes that non-notable academics do not become notable for simply being interviewed). Moreover: WP:NOTNEWS. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. This scholar's work directly or indirectly has resulted in recognition and NGO appointments. The Order of Work Glory award, although derided above, is more than what most academics achieve. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What “recognition” and what “NGO appointments” are you speaking of, and how do these translate into notability?
 * As to that silly award, I suppose you are technically correct that most academics worldwide do not get a little medal from the government of Moldova, but perhaps you can understand why an award given to no less than 72 university professors (in a country not exactly bursting with them), and one given to, among other people, “Nicolai Dragan, president of the Pobeda Collective Farm, Gagauzia”, does nothing to bolster a claim of notability. — Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If Molvova has 18 universities (assuming List of universities in Moldova is correct, and if a university tends to have about 250 professors (just my estimate) then we would estimate there to be 4,500 professors in the country. Let's not consider turnover, 4,500 is today's estimate, not the all time number, just to be conservative. So 72 of 4,5000 means 1.6% got the award. I don't think this suggest it is given out easily. I'd use the 72 number to argue the opposite, only a small fraction of professors have ever got the award, assuming my estimates are reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that this type of award can be mentioned once notability is otherwise established; it does not by itself establish or add to notability.
 * For example, the current Prime Minister of Moldova was given the award some years ago. Should that be mentioned in his biography? I suppose. Does it add one iota to his notability? No, because the award is also freely handed out to the most ordinary, routine citizens, people very far away from any hint of notability. People like “Mihail Baban, retiree, ex-director of the middle school in Arionești village” (population 1300). — Biruitorul Talk 16:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're arguing that the award must be insignificant because people you don't recognize received it. There's no reason to assume that a middle school director couldn't be notable: we have more than 250 biographies of American school principals. You also note that the current PM received the award, which only seems to support the idea that it is, in fact, a significant award. pburka (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One, notable people have received the award, I don’t dispute that. But they’re only a small fraction of the total recipients.
 * Two, may I remind you of WP:BURDEN? In fact, let’s try something. I’ve made a list of ten recent recipients (recent, meaning coverage will be online), of whom, I must admit, I’ve never heard. If you can make a reasonable demonstration that even one of them is notable (I won’t be very stringent), I’ll immediately withdraw this nomination, because that would truly mean any recipient is notable.


 * Vasile Plăcintă, chief inspector at the Chișinău Customs Point
 * Galina Filipova, head of the Department of social aid and family protection, Taraclia District Council
 * Nicolai Odajiu, veteran worker, Chircăiești village
 * Ludmila Mîndru, head nurse at the Cancer Institute
 * Tamara Codrean, head of the MedFamily Medical Center
 * Andrei Meșina, locksmith and repairer at the Ionel Clothing Factory
 * Iraida Cușnir, doctor at the Călărași District Council
 * Tatiana Gutium, head of the City Maternity Hospital nr. 2
 * Elena Adomniței, teacher at the Zorile village middle school
 * Nina Rusu, secretary at the Strășeni District Council. — Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Even in a small country, a national award is a national award. As for appointments and other NGO roles, among others, she is an organizing partner of the Women's Major Group. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But national awards are themselves not inherent indications of notability. At most, they correlate with it — a recipient of the Order of the Republic is likelier to be notable, but it’s not guaranteed.
 * How exactly does the Women's Major Group link satisfy WP:PSTS? Yes, it attests she’s on the board of an NGO — but it’s the NGO itself doing the attesting. A circular feedback loop at its finest. — Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I noted on the DYK nomination page, 121 Google Scholar citations over a 20-year span does not meet the notability threshold for an academic, not by a long shot. Turgidson (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Citation counts are contextual. Articles on political science topics by authors from Moldova and Romania are cited less than 1.2 times per article Lens.org search. Articles in gender studies even less than that. Articles from social science fields are less cited than Medicine and Technology; likewise articles written in any language other than English are likely to be under-cited. Given the context, the author citation profile is respectable. Furthermore, her works are cited outside the academic literature--including GMF, UN World Food, UN FAO book. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then where is Bodrug-Lungu's contextual citation by Romanian-speaking academic sources? Dahn (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of establishing academic notability, author origin has no bearing on whether one's research is considered impactful within a field. NPROF says For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). "Being a Moldovan academic" is not a major subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient recognition over time to meet WP:ANYBIO, criteria #2 from her UN work alone, without even mentioning her work with the EU and policy at the national level.,, ,, Her notability should not be judged as an academic, but rather as a policy expert, which clearly is demonstrated by her involvement at both the national and international level, as shown by numerous sources. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources would have to show more than "involvement" in policies, they would have to include statements specifically about her contribution and contextual importance, and substantial coverage of her as a public person. This has not shown to be the case, no matter how many passing mentions are piled on here to fluff up the entry. Dahn (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Being in a UN program or working group does not make someone notable. Nor does being a member of a governmental subcommittee. Tens of thousands of people regularly take part in such UN conferences/stakeholder platforms/partnerships (the SDGS UN profile you link is for an upcoming virtual "expert group meeting" for stakeholders with voluntary commitments to SDG Goal 5; Bodrug-Lungu is one of 50+ attendees. 3 other EGMs are being held in just the next month alone, which you can register for if you have a partnership account). ANYBIO #2 says Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. We are orders of magnitude from that threshold (do we even have lay sources that describe her work, as opposed to just quoting her?). Passing mentions and brief quotes as an expert are routine for academics, especially in fields that intersect with policy/IR, and apart from a small number of invited lecture series the prestige of the venue is totally irrelevant. This is also true of being a panelist at various international fora. The other sources you cite are press announcements from orgs Bodrug-Lungu belongs to (e.g. OSCE, PGE), her name in lists of discussion participants, or quotes from her as an attendee at a forum, none of which count towards notability. If we are not judging based on NPROF, she must meet GNG, and she absolutely does not have multiple pieces of SIGCOV in SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Also note how the entry is being promoted because of a supposed gender bias against Moldovan women, when Bodrug is in fact specialized in discussing said claim, and is exclusively quoted for that (self-referential) claim. We are not talking about someone like Diana Dumitru, also a woman, also a Moldovan, and also an associate professor, whose notability is instantly discernible from imposing and varied scholarship, also in humanities, that has been published and widely quoted by independent venues. (A similar case could be made about Moldovan scholar Svetlana Suveică, on whom we do not have an article.) Now that is notability for a scholar from Moldova, not what is being introduced here as an astounding new benchmark. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Or take Mihaela Miroiu from neighboring Romania — not so much our lackluster article, but a cursory Google search, will reveal immediate notability, without having to invent new standards.
 * Standards such as “she shares a medal with ‘Vasile Strîmbeanu, mayor of Limbenii Vechi village’, ‘Andrei Munteanu, head of the „Miorița” Recreation Camp, Ivancea village’, ‘Oleg Ciocoi, vice director of the Society of Hunters and Fishermen of the Republic of Moldova’, or ‘Dumitru Gornostal, mechanic at Railroad car station nr. 294, Răuțel Station’”.
 * By the way, did anyone have any luck finding sources on at least one of these guys? I’m sure the Moldovan Internet is positively abuzz with in-depth coverage of these village mayors, camp directors, hunting association vice directors and especially railway mechanics. — Biruitorul Talk 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Biruitorul, it is totally out of pocket to belittle living people to score points on Wikipedia. Please find a less disparaging way to make your point. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with these fine people, but with the AfD participants who claimed, in all seriousness, that their receipt of a medal made them notable.
 * But yes, I’ve made my point. Still, permit me to close with four more (no names this time): driver, mechanic, bricklayer, carpenter. The very image of notability! — Biruitorul Talk 08:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that awards and honours are a contributing factor to notability e.g. the British OBE doesn't guarantee notability, but is a contributor to a case for it
 * Lajmmoore (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement to the extent that once notability is otherwise established, awards can be mentioned. — Biruitorul Talk 10:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, I read the guidance that they are a contributing factor to notability but (as you say) not proof by themselves. There is a difference. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about Suveică? She is cited 193 times in Google Scholar, far less than Miroiu with her 1.6k citations and closer to the subject of this AfD.
 * By the way, out of curiosity I looked into some of the persons mentioned above. Strîmbeanu and Gornostal are not notable, and Andrei Munteanu has such a common name that it is hard to even find sources referring to him. Ciocoi though, is a different case. Several Moldovan newspapers mention him. Not that I can already tell he is notable though. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He became society president in the meantime too. Impressive. On a serious vein, there may be scope for an article on hunting in Moldova; Ciocoi, with a handful of press quotes and maybe a protest to his name, is far from meeting the notability standards, medal or not. — Biruitorul Talk 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * -- not sure about Suveică's notability, but certainly surer than I am about Bodrug's. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my opinion this is not an article of a seemingly non-notable figure at first glance, but arguments here have convinced me. Considering though that this is a living person, she may receive further coverage from reliable sources in the future. She appears to have had some relevant functions. So an article about her shouldn't be discarded forever. Though it might take years or decades for her to become notable, if she ever does. It is more likely that she will not. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep- there's a lot to consider with the discussion above, but I still think there are grounds for her inclusion:
 * WP:PROF-1b says "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - so I would suggest that pioneering the teaching of gender studies does support this. See the initial paragraph in the UN Women article here (not the interview body) & a similar introduction from Agora here (which Internews Europe supports the reliability of. (sources I started the article with)
 * WP:PROF-7 "impact outside academia in their academic capacity" including syllabi redevelopment as published by the journal Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei) 39.9 (2010): 246-246 here (a source I started the article with)
 * Also, thanks to the discussion above, I think this is further supported by the BBC feature here & the introduction from Kurier here. I think the medal is a contributing factor to notability too. Her role with the Women's Major Group contributes to notability too. I'd missed this initially, but it was founded at the 1992 Earth Summit. There's this this publication where her expertise is described as "s a significant contribution in the draw up and promotion of essential documents related to gender equality in Moldova. Actively involved in creating and building capacity within the national mechanism on gender equality in Moldova, she was a member of the Governmental Committee on Gender Equality (2006 – 2008); head of the Presidential Committee on Women and Family Issues (1999-2000); member on the board of Karat Coalition, a network of women’s NGOs from CEE/CIS countries."(p.224) Looking at where her researched is discussed, it most often discussed in terms of her research into domestic violence here in a thesis, here in terms of conjugal rape, here in terms of influencing Israeli pedagoggy.
 * I also think that her case is interesting to debate as her notability intersects across policy, research and advocacy, so doesn't neatly fit into WP guidelines. In combination I think this makes a positive case for inclusion. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so now you cite as evidence of notability some marginal praise of her in a PhD thesis that had her as the adviser? Dahn (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference is a secondary source in a PhD dissertation and I don't see a guideline that precludes its inclusion. I see that you're implying that it must be biased, but I don't think that claim is automatic. Supervisees often discuss the work of their supervisors - sometimes critically, sometimes not, but just because this isn't critical doesn't mean its inclusion is warrented. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Dahn (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I read that description too - but this reference isn't referring to the primary data in the thesis, but the assessment of a secondary source. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it is even more useless. Dahn (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the absurdity, the Israeli thesis, for which Bodrug served as adviser, cites Bodrug’s own doctoral thesis! — Biruitorul Talk 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the guideline as different - that you can't use a PhD as a primary source - but you can use it as a secondary one. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN is not an independent source on Bodrug-Lungu as she belongs to several UN organizations and collaborates directly with UN Women. The Agora interview only calls her a "gender expert", which is, again, extremely routine for academics. And anyway, NPROF C1b states: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Where are the necessary numerous academic publications discussing both the significance of promoting gender education in Moldova and her role in it?
 * NPROF C7: Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Nowhere have we established that her academic work is widely regarded as significant within academia. A colleague of hers writing a nice letter about her in her university's education journal, on behalf of the department she belongs to, is not an independent assessment of her academic impact. Additionally, that source only notes she "contributed to the conceptualization of "education for family life" in Moldovan secondary schools"; it doesn't say anything about any syllabi being implemented (which is irrelevant to NPROF C7 anyway).
 * Praise by organizations about their own members is never independent; hyping the quality/impact of their members' work is literally what they do and thus is not suggestive of notability. A one-sentence self-submitted blurb in the "About Us" section of one of the UN's SDG processes is not suggestive of notability. Bodrug-Lungu's own doctoral student discussing her research in their dissertation is obviously not independent appraisal of her academic contributions; it is not even an academic source as it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Two sentences discussing one's research in an academic article is exactly what a citation is in the humanities; the existence of citations to someone is not evidence of academic notability unless the number is well above the average for the field. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding citations: What is the field and what is the average--and what is the source of that average? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: No one has commented since the relist, giving it one more shot. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC).
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time you added a "strong" in your stance without adequately explaining why. There is a lengthy discussion above, so please refer to one of the guidelines if you really think it deserves a "strong" delete. Timothytyy (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand the nature of the discussion so far, I believe. Going down the Google Scholar list, I see a broad base of publications over a range of social, psychological and educational areas, quite a few not in English. The scope of the material in the article doesn't really reflect that range. In my judgement, having this article helps rather than hinders Wikipedia's mission. I say this as someone who works on Wikidata on topics and authors for scholarly papers, rather than someone who applies citation metrics. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument? Are you saying that, because she has published on a broad range of topics, she meets NPROF? Because that reasoning is explicitly prohibited in NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Incredibly weak citation record. Other coverage is unexceptional and does not indicate notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 17 May 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.