Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Węglarz


 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jan Węglarz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced BLP, very few sources on Google too. Being a "computer programmer" does not mean he is notable. Pmlineditor     ∞    10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think there is enough to say that he is notable. He has a huge body of work and is a laureate of the Foundation for Polish Science.  see this for his publications and more info about him  GB fan  talk 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Top GS cites are 229, 90, 71, 43. When added to distinctions enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. Based on the citation counts, his work doesn't seem to have had that much impact. In Google Scholar, top cites (229, 90, 71, 71, 51, 50, 43) look reasonable, but there are not that many papers with dozens of citations; h-index only 15. I checked some other services, with similar results. ISI WoK: top cites 119, 54, 43, 38, 37, 32 and h-index 13. MathSciNet: top cites 12, 3, 3, 1, 1, 0. ACM portal: top cites 28, 23, 3, 2, 1, 0. (For the sake of calibration, I checked the citation counts of some computer scientists whom I know. A typical non-notable computer science professor seems to have more impressive citation counts; there are even some people who did their PhD approx. 5 years ago, are obviously not yet notable, and have roughly similar citation counts. I also checked some people with strange accents in their names, so that does not explain the seemingly low impact.) So I think something else than citation counts is needed to keep this article, and then we would need reliable third-party sources, which we don't seem to have. After all, this is a BLP without any references. — Miym (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong keep. I added material from the Polish Wikipedia's article on him, including a list of the honorary doctorates that he has received. As a member of a national academy, he should be automatically notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough in the article to assert notability. Airplaneman  talk 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to withdraw this nom. Pmlineditor      ∞    03:02, 8 November 2009 (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.