Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otomar Hájek


 * 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. Withdrawn nomination. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Otomar Hájek

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced BLP since January 2008. Contested PROD. I can't find significant coverage at independent reliable sources for this America-based scientist. I can verify the publication of the books, but I can't find any coverage about the person. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn following both sourcing, and the arguments below. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. You can see that he is emeritus at Case Western here. I don't see that the notability is in question, and the biographical content is not at all worrying. The Mathematical Genealogy page verifies much of his academic career. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before nominating here, I checked to see if the MGP was counted as a reliable source (see here for the search I made), but there was no mention one way or the other. I know that they invite submissions and corrections, but I am not sure how much editorial input and checking there is into this, so I am unable to be sure myself (despite looking through the website) if it is covered under WP:RS. For all we know, the details could have been submitted by Hájek himself (which would mean that it does not meet WP:IS). With regard to his being emeritus, the website does indeed indicate this, but I did not feel that it met WP:PROF#5 The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is via the published work, surely. MGP should be counted as reliable enough. There is "coverage of the person", and more if you look for it. At most some trimming of what is actually given in biography, or fact, is warranted at this time. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's not shown how the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The 'emeritus' position comes close to satisfying condition 5, but I don't think it's on the level of a 'named chair'. The article is unreferenced except for the math genealogy project and that shouldn't be used as evidence of notability. Finally, date and place of birth should be minimum requirement for any bio article.--RDBury (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS:BIO actually says that Dates of birth and death, if known should be used - but there is no actually requirement in any policy or guideline that says that it has to be there. Not having it would not prevent me from supporting keeping the article if RS/IS could be found to show that he meets the notability criteria --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a policy or guideline, but for someone born in modern times it seems like a good indication there is insufficient material for bio article if no one has found a source for basic information like this. The "if known" is a bit vague in any case, I assume someone knows the date; not like Euclid where the date is lost to history.--RDBury (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's just an individual who likes his privacy? Even if he does meet the notability criteria, he's not a tv/film celeb - he's not going to have the press crawling over his personal life and finding those details! However, a look at Ancestry could have possibly revealed his DoB - he would have been 33 when he got his PhD, does that sound right for him? Sources (membership of Ancestry may be required) are DoB: 1930 (if this is our boy, then some of the sources from the Biography & Genealogy Master Index that are listed there might be useful to verify/add to the article details) and 22 December 1930, Living in Fredericksburg, VA in 1996/22 December 1930, Living in Chardon/Cleveland OH 1993-1995. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant that he was a Fulbright scholar in 1990: . Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep I'm not really sure about this as he is too far from my area to assess directly. But MathSciNet lists about 74 publications so he was reasonably productive, and 2 of his 3 books have been reprinted which suggests that someone is reading them, so I would guess from this that he is probably sufficiently notable in his area. r.e.b. (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS gives h index = 10 with some high cites that indicate impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC).
 * WP:PROF warns that indices may be used as a rough guide but should be used with caution. There no rule such as h index > n implies notable.--RDBury (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true. Acceptable h index varies with subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment. I'll put this comment here, rather than as a reply to anything above, as the formatting of this discussion seems to be all over the place. I have no opinion about whether this article should be kept or deleted, but would point out that a position of "professor emeritus" has no more inherent notability than that of "professor" - it is simply a professor who carries on doing some part-time work after formal retirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xxan, R.e.b. Ray  Talk 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are avalible per Xxan. Ronk01   talk  05:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment May I suggest that some of the 'keeps' here actually find and add some of these sources to the article? I looked and couldn't find any significant coverage of him at indepedent reliable sources, but if some of you who say they are out there can find some, I'd be quite happy for this to be kept! Saying that they are there and not adding them to the article seems to me to indicate that you haven't actually found the reliable sources which would demonstrate that he meets WP:PROF - I couldn't find evidence that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (#1), which I presume is what the 'keeps' are suggesting? I also can't see how he meets the other criteria for inclusion, hence why I brought the article to AfD. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I did, but I also looked at WP:PROF: The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. [...] In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be twice the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only [...] Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used. - to be honest, if there was evidence that he met any of the other criteria, I'd have no problems with the article being kept, but I am usually cautious about someone who only appears to meet criteria 1. How many citation hits are at WoK and Scopus? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For Heaven's sake make an effort. GS tells you exactly exactly what each source is. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
 * For heavent's sake, add something to the article then, to demonstrate the notability that you feel is there! If you feel that he meets the notability criteria (I am not convinced) then add some references to the article. He has a few papers which have been well-cited, yes - but he also has a *lot* of papers which are either cited by 1 other, or by none. I am not convinced, even though I think we can see where this AfD is going - but I hate the fact that often I see people saying "keep", but not being willing to actually add to the article to demonstrate the notability which they claim the person meets. Look at the 'keeps' here: one uses his emeritus as demonstration of notability, but this does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion; the others say about GS hits - but none of you can be bothered to add anything to the article. I'm not going to add anything, because as I said, I'm not convinced that he meets the criteria for inclusion - so I feel that it is the 'keep's who should add something. I'm also surprised that someone so 'notable' has not actually been mentioned (other than citations of his work) in any RS - where is the coverage saying "he is recognised as a pioneer in... " or "he is widely seen as one of the foremost researchers in ..." etc? Anyway, I'll turn off my rant-mode now! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably am the editor who originally deprecated the use of google scholar. I'm not sure I would do so now; the quality is much improved, and it is both more comprehensive and less erratic. It's an appropriate supplement to the WoS and Scopus indexes. It is just necessary to keep in mind that it gives cites from all sorts of things other than peer-reviewed journals, and so the counts are usually consistently higher. See for example Nisa Bakkalbasi's  &  ; though she was my research student, this was unrelated work done by her subsequently.     DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Noted mathemtician - formerly (now emeritus) Prof at leading US University - published important articles and books. Added refs of review of book in peer-reviewed journal and to von Humboldt award, to support work at TH Darmstadt. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep 3 books, 2 by major academic publishers,  is sufficient   DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 12 October 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.