Deletion of Zenia Kotval

Comment: The induction as a Fellow by the American Institute of Certified Planners a part of the American Planning Association should satisfy criteria 2 of  as it would be on the scale of the Association of Computing Machinery or other Professional Fellowship recognition. Just be cause an academic profession intersects with applied work it does not make it less notable. Additionally across disciplines what constitutes a contribution to the field vary thus the 100+ books in the planning field probably is in higher regard than peer reviewed publications. Thus Criteria 1 is partially met as well and with a little more investigation and probably expertise in the subject could be a better judge how criteria 1 is met. I disagree with the position that content should be deleted rather than made a draft or kept as a stub for future improvement. I speak from my personal experience that I'd rather take a single line article the expand upon that has one or two sources than have to start by establishing the same facts to start. It is like growing sugar crystals, a slight imperfection allows the greater structure to grow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I concur with nom. Does not satisfy ,  or . I have engaged repeatedly with its original author since its creation but they have not attempted to expand it to meet the above criteria other than to strip out the original  to satisfy the CSD I placed on it. They promised
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:NPROF||WP:COPYVIO)

Comment: AICP lists being a fellow as its highest honor for members https://www.planning.org/faicp/, and out of roughly 17k members https://www.planning.org/annualreport/ only 636 are fellows https://www.planning.org/media/document/9162144/, 3%-4%, which is in the same range as other scholarly societies for whom we consider membership to pass #C3. I think those numbers also demonstrate that it's a major society. I imagine that most of its members are working urban planners, not academics, and the breakdown of fellows by nomination category in the linked document shows that actually a much smaller of them become fellows for their research accomplishments, so I'm inclined to accept this as a significant honor. The Fulbright is also suggestive although it wouldn't be enough for notability by itself. The citation counts on Google Scholar aren't enough to convince me of a second pass of #C1 (in contrast for instance to Silva's higher numbers) but that isn't a reason to delete the article, just a block of a second path to keeping it. The keep is weak because the sourcing for the article is still very weak, though. But the AICP fellow and Fulbright are not in any doubt, and we do also have a cv https://www.canr.msu.edu/spdc/uploads/cv/kotval_cv_wcag2.0_041417.pdf which while not usable for evaluative content (like the significance of her research) at least better covers the basic facts of her education and career. Her co-edited volume also has multiple published reviews http://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12045 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0739456X18778318 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.811375, which don't really add to notability (because edited not authored) but are enough to say something about it in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: The sourcing could stand to be improved, but I think there's a decent case for passing #C3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per  C3.  If the subject contacts Wikipedia through channels and requests deletion, then I'd support it, but I'd counsel the subject not to do so.  This discussion will not be prominent for long
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)