Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antal Jákli


 * 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   keep. Being an autobiography is not a valid reason for deleiton. No arguements have been brought suggesting he does not pass WP:PROF. kelapstick(bainuu) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Antal Jákli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography; may fail notability  Eye snore  (pc) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Autobiography, and no indication of notability C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. With a GS h-index of 31 is a clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment -- Full professors are often notable, and I suspect this guy is notable. Someone tagged this article as possibly having been edited by somoene with a conflict of interest.  This is not grounds for deletion.  There are rules for how and when principles can edit their own articles.  If this really happened here, but he is nevertheless notable, there are ways to remediate that.  The first step would have been to explain the COI rules to the person suspect of being in a conflict of interest.  I don't see any sign this happened here.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per norms. Reads like a resume without indication of notability. Darkesthoursoflife ( † •  © ) 06:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion of his performance in WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Weak keep per WP:PROF. The citation counts are high enough to convince me that he's a noteworthy physicist. The sourcing of the article is poor, but it mostly covers the basic facts of his education and career, for which primary sources are adequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  22:38, 30 March 2014 (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.