Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juraj Tóth


 * 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   no consensus. A quick review of the article and arguments finds me agreeing mostly with Edison's delete vote, but Wifione's keep argument is well reasoned, and appears to have a fair level of support. No consensus here in other words. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Juraj Tóth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Claim to notability appears to be that he witnessed a meteor shower, and worked at a university. Clearly not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Contested speedy. Prodego talk  02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had contested the speedy on the assumption that Prodego deleted the article without seeing darkfalls' new version. To me, the professorship indicates that he might be notable. However, if no one can add sources indicating that he meets WP:PROF within a week, then we should delete the article. NW ( Talk ) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:Professor. Merely being a college teacher and publishing something are not sufficient. Significant impact? Prestigious academic award? What is supposed to make him stand out beyond tens of thousands of other professors? Edison (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that I have been unable to retrieve many of the foreign sources for Tóth (he has published several papers in Slovak) due to language difficulties. If anyone can speak Slovak here can find these sources, it would be much appreciated. &mdash;Dark 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the contributions to science were significant, English sources would not be difficult to find, as English has become the lingua franca of most sciences. The fact that many publications are in a language few people can read is not a sign of notability for academics.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A source written in a different language should not be given less weight than a source written in English. The fact that English is the lingua franca of most sciences is an irrelevant point. &mdash;Dark 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that sources in other languages can be given the same weight but, the matter of fact is that, unlike, say authors of novels, singers and entertainers which can be well known in a culture and completely unknown outside of it, scientists with significant contributions to science will be at least noticed in English publications. Now Juraj Tóth could still technically pass the general notability guidelines through reliable sources in Slovak (if there are enough of them), but it's unlikely that he passes the notability guidelines for academics in light of the lack of English sources about his scientific work.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. See this list of publications. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not seem to pass WP:PROF.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He witnessed a meteor shower, really?  Wow.  Congrats.  JBsupreme (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article? His photographs and findings of the meteor shower was published in various journals, and in use by NASA. &mdash;Dark 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That still falls short of WP:N and WP:PROF. No significant coverage by mainstream media, no significant coverage in scholarly publications.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep CREATIVE clearly mentions "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.". The person Juraj Toth is well known amongst his peers (including NASA, European Space Agency). CREATIVE mentions that notability is further assured if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles." Considering that his photograph (and his contribution, per se) is listed by Department of Astronomy, The Observer, European Space Agency which btw has only his photograph for reference, Bath University, NASA, Harvard, Michigan Technology University/NASA, and others mentioned in the article, and sundry sites like Meteor Observer,Comenius University,Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Environmental Graffiti, Arizona University[], and for the sake of brevity, conferences, one could surely keep the article. I also think one could even look at notability criteria for photographers which says that "if a photographer is significant historically (e.g. the first to photograph this)", the person is notable. In that context too, Juraj Toth would qualify (if one considers purely the photograph). '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (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.