Deletion of Eva Mroczek

Comment: Just a thought, rather than , maybe could consider  given the multiple reviews of the monograph
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The first criterion for  is that "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Reading the reviews for her monograph makes it clear that she has had such an impact on the field of ancient Jewish/Biblical studies. I have updated the page to replace the dead links with live ones, add further references, demonstrate the importance of her work, and generally give it more of a structure. It also makes little sense to have a very short page for her monograph rather than a more detailed one about her work overall including the monograph, so I have incorporated the information from the monograph page into this page and propose to redirect the monograph page rather than vice versa
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Seems like  for . No in-depth coverage, a few mentions in passing, one recent notable work... Let's wait until she has at least two notable works or until someone writes a tribute to her impact on the field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: Someone who has written a work that has been described as 'field-changing' and 'one that all scholars of antiquity should read' clearly passes the very first criteria of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: as others have said per , perhaps a case of  as well. There might be something that can be merged too
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: While both sides have convincing arguments, it appears to me that the first criterion of  is fulfilled, and this criterion does not disregard recognition for a single work, even considering the general notes in . Also, the same general notes mention that the criteria "sets the bar fairly low, which is natural", so I'm convinced that the article should be kept. I'm supporting myself on {{u|Eritha}}'s content that has been added to the article, on the other 'retain' voters comments, on the citation number for her main book, on the fact that such a book has copies in numerous places https://www.worldcat.org/title/literary-imagination-in-jewish-antiquity/oclc/1055643106, on the fact that her book (being written based on her thesis) comprises content from multiple of her articles and thus can be seen as multiple work, on the secondary sources that comment on Eva's work (cited in her article), and other aspects mentioned here and in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NPROF)