Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenia Kotval
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
— User:David, 06:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)