Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliusz Brzezinski


 * 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 delete. Tone 11:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Juliusz Brzezinski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Serious concerns regarding WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. GScholar citation index and related (h, i) are rather low. No awards, no media coverage. Prod declined by creator, User:Biografer, with "Meets WP:PROF per highest rank, which is Professor Emeritus." but I am afraid professor emeritus does not meet WP:PROF#8 (The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) since the title is in general not really the highest-level, it's just a nice honorific for retired faculty. This can very a bit based on country, but there is no evidence in that article (nor in our rather poor and unreferenced description of the term) to suggest that in Sweden it is indeed "the highest level". Anyway, for highest level this bio needs info on awards, achievements and such, and I am not seeing it, plus another red flag is no sv wiki interwiki link. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete poorly sourced GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not all professors holding PhDs are notable, and any higher level of inclusion criteria would exclude Brzezinski.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mathematics is a low-citation field, but even so we need evidence of impact to give notability through WP:PROF. His Google Scholar profile appears to mix his citations with a similarly-named chemist but with or without the chemistry it's not really highly enough cited to convince. He certainly does not meet #C6, which is reserved for the heads of entire universities. He has a new textbook "Galois Theory Through Exercises" with one review on MAA  and one non-review (just a copy-and-past of the publisher blurb) on Mathematical Reviews; that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. As Piotrus already stated, "emeritus" is usually just a fancy way of writing "retired". So he seems to be the epitome of an average full professor, one who does not stand out in the way that our academic notability criteria seek. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When writing this article, I too was baffled by that there are no reliable sources. I didn't wrote the article because he have a PhD, that I know, doesn't establish notability. The "emeritus professor" was the reason for the write up. I don't agree with the statement that ""emeritus" is usually just a fancy way of writing "retired"". Some professors remain at the faculty and aren't leaving until that retirement comes, yet, their title is still "emeritus".--Biografer (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Typically emeritus (retired) professors can be recalled for light teaching duty and can continue to pursue their research. An example from the same institution as Brzezinski : "retired from his chair in 2013 and is now Professor Emeritus at Chalmers pursuing his research interests and teaching". In some places it means merely "retired in good standing" while in others it means "retired but on recall"; the distinction is unimportant for this case. I see nothing at the linked page for Brzezinski at Chalmers or elsewhere on Chalmers' web sites to indicate that their use of this term is in any way unusual. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete, per solid cases above. He's in a lower-citation subfield of a low-citation field, but citations are still too light.  Comment that "emeritus" usually means slightly more than just retired, more like "respected retired".  (But it certainly doesn't contribute to meeting WP:NPROF.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources.-Splinemath (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2020 (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.