Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliusz Brzezinski

Juliusz Brzezinski

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Juliusz Brzezinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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| 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| 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| 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#C1. His Google Scholar profile [1] 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 #C8, which is reserved for the heads of entire universities. He has a new textbook "Galois Theory Through Exercises" with one review on MAA [2] 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)
  • @David Eppstein: 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)