Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zbigniew Jaworowski


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Zbigniew Jaworowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This scientist is basically not notable - he's served on a bunch of comittees, but holds no chair. He has some publications, but nothing major. His real claim to fame is some less-than-well-known work in Lyndon LaRouche related publications where he denies all kinds of things. Fails WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd further note that I have serious concerns about the accuracy of the introductory paragraph. It appears that Dr. Jaworowski is merely a consultant at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, whatever that is. It appears that the intro-bio as presented is from a less-than-reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That bio is from the NP, and so isn't reliable. Outside the nest of echoing dubious sources, real sources are thin., nominally by ZJ, says he is prof emeritus there. (again, of unclear reliability) says Between 1970 and 1987 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw as the head of the Department of Radiation Hygiene. Between 1982 and 1984 he worked in the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires in Fontenay-aux-Roses near Paris as a guest professor. In 1987-1988 Professor Jaworowski worked at the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo. In 1988-1990 he worked at the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo. Between 1990 and 1991 Zbigniew Jaworowski worked for six months as a visiting professor at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. Between 1991 and 1993 he was working in the Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller near Oslo. Since 1993 he is working at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, now as the chairman of the Scientific Council. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable enough, far more notable for his work than another WP article i can think of mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? What leads you to believe he passes WP:PROF? Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 does. mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. While much of what the nom says is true, the fact is that this person has indeed published quite a few works that themselves have garnered significant citation (WP:PROF #1), e.g. WoS shows >30 articles. His h-index seems to be about 10, but the collective citations well exceed 200. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Question - Prof #1 states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." What significant impact has he made, and what independent reliable sources demonstrate this? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of the very first footnote of WP:PROF reads "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". In other words, citation counts are the proxy by which impact is judged and this is the standard way in which WP:PROF #1 is measured for AfDs. Those citations come from other published research articles, which are themselves the reliable sources in question. Again, this is well-established convention and cases like this having >200 citations present and extremely strong case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep, although with some hesitation. Seems to be a sufficiently prominent figure in the global warming skeptics movement to justify inclusion. Let me note first that WP:PROF does mention that WP:FRINGE authors essentially need to be evaluated under the general WP:BIO standards. So we basically need to look to general newsmedia type sources here. GoogleNews gives 98 hits for his name. As a raw number, that's reasonably high. On closer inspection, many of these hits do not seem to really pass WP:RS, but there seems to be enough of them that do. E.g. BBC,TheHindu. There is also some coverage back from 1986 from the time of the Chernobyl disaster, e.g. . None of this coverage seems to be particularly detailed, but I think in this case the quantity of coverage is sufficient to overcome that. Raw numbers in GoogleBooks are also reasonably large - 144 hits. Many of these appear to be citations of his views in various global warning denial books, but it still does constitute coverage. Some of it is fairly specifically biographical, e.g. here. Apparently his research even inspired a novel. Overall seems to be enough here to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this appears to be notability by google search - yes, his name is used quite a few times, but none of those times goes into the depth required to write a biography. For instance, can you verify his career path - a task that is trivial for most notable persons? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, but sometimes primary sources can be used for that, per WP:SELFPUB. Or the non-verified career info could simply be removed from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will emphasize that the citation numbers I found came from WoS, so these are all articles from "legit" journals like Physics Today, Health Physics, Nature, Toxicology and Appl. Pharm. et al. In other words, he passes on mainstream WP:PROF grounds, irrespective of anything else he's said or done. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
 * My experience with WP:PROF leads me to understand that merely being cited does not make someone notable - Like I said, per WP:PROF #1 - What significant impact has he made, and what independent reliable sources demonstrate this? Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, like I said earlier, I think WP:PROF should not be applied here at all. The spirit of WP:PROF, as made clear by several footnotes there, is to exclude fringe/pseudoscience proponents from the guideline and route them through WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, you're correct. A person must not just be "cited", but "highly cited". The latter condition demonstrates impact ipso facto. You should be aware that assessing WP:PROF #1 according to citation count is a long-standing convention here, so pushing your line of argument further would be a waste of everyone's time here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep. GS cites give h index of 13. That suffices for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete -- I think WP:PROF applies rather than an h index. I cannot see how this man has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * h index is a weighted measure of citation count. It is usually assumed on these pages (see past history) that a high h index indicates that WP:Prof #1 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * To add to Xxanthippe's point, let me repeat from above for all of you who are unfamiliar with the conventions here: The very first sentence of the very first footnote of WP:PROF reads "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Sure, but the same footnote also states "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." Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely why I reported the collective number of citations above ("but the collective citations well exceed 200"). In cases which are not borderline with respect to the h-index (for example h>15), there's no need to do the summation (and indeed it is not normally done) because those values ensure, by definition, that there are several hundred citations, which is enough to pass criterion 1. A long-standing consensus, that is. You seem to be looking for some theory named after him or some other conspicuous proof of impact, but hundreds of citations to his work is indeed sufficient here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment -- can there really be a single h-index for all fields? Number theorists will tend to have low h-indices and experimental physicists higher ones -- even if the mathematician is an acclaimed one and the physicists garden variety. This seems a very flawed notability criterion. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if used indiscriminately. WP:PROF says that citation statistics should be used in the light of the particular field. So an h-index that makes a mathematician notable would not suffice for a physicist. (And the same for any other citation statistic). --Crusio (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree -- but that seems to be what people tend to do. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted. However, I would like to note that a citation record of 200 total, with an h-index of 13 is not at all notable in my eyes. I know postdocs and junior assistant professors that have that much and most notable researchers will get 50-100 citations per year... It might be different if this were about a mathematician (where citation rates are very low), but this is a high-citation density field. --Crusio (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. But let me add (and offer apology for not mentioning sooner) that lots of papers in such areas that tend to get highly cited are many-author "big physics" projects – and, in such instances, there is no widely accepted way to divide the "citation credit". For example, in our own article on the h-index, the first point under the criticisms section says: "the h-index and similar indexes tend to favor fields with larger groups". In checking the citation record, Jaworowski is either the first author or the only author on almost every one of his publications. So, I think one could make a case that he would be "fully credited" with those citations, rather than having only partial credit, as perhaps one could argue for many postdocs or junior faculty who are often not the primary contributor on highly-cited papers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I don't agree completely. In those big physics projects, most people don't publish many papers. So the few they publish (as 36th author among 325 or so) don't really add up to a large h. I should perhaps have specified above that I know postdocs and junior assistant professors that have 200+ citations and an h above 10 and that are either first or last author (this does not go for the postdocs, of course). Just one example that I am familiar with. See in WoS, Yann Mineur (search for "Mineur Y" and "Mineur YS" and remove one computer science article that is not his). Obtained his PhD less than 6 years ago, 398 citations, H of 10 and first author on 8 of the 10 highest cited papers. He's not even an assistant prof yet . There are many more like that. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Oh well, time to comment. I know nothing of ZJ other than his role in global warming controversy where he is notable (but only weakly) for having some ridiculaous opinions about CO2 (this is alluded to in Zbigniew_Jaworowski; a better ref would be http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7 but alas our sourcing rules prohibit us using it). So, on the grounds that our sourcing rule prohibit a meaningful discussion of the one thing that makes him notable, I argue, weakly, for delete William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This guy is clearly self-promoting. I hope the article conveys just how far outside the mainstream he is. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely. Not a good candidate to be removed. It is enough notable. Needs to refine and improve only. Elm478 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Elm478 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.