Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henryk Witek

: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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Henryk Witek]]=

:{{la|Henryk Witek}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henryk_Witek Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Henryk Witek}})

This article has been through PROD, but never AFD. There is very limited evidence of notability here, and the article has been tagged with notability concerns for 5 years. According to Scopus, his h-index is 26, which is decent for a youngish professor at a major research university, but definitely does not establish notability by WP:PROF. According to this Wiki article, one of the claims that supposedly establishes his notability is that he was on a Science paper (but he was in fact only third author of four), and that he has won a handful of minor, non-notable awards. This page looks like a standard academic CV to me, so I don't think he meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - don't think he meets WP:PROF either. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
Comment - Regarding the author order in academic papers: for senior authors what matters is if they are corresponding authors (have an asterisk after their name in the author list). Frequently, names of group leaders are near the end of author lists but are followed by an asterisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.227.221.26 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

::There is no evidence for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

::Regardless, having one Science paper doesn't make you a notable scientist. They publish dozens of papers per week. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I think four papers with 100 citations each in Google scholar should be enough for WP:PROF#C1, and we have enough other material on him to make an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep per David Eppstein - Best Blake44 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep: meets PROF #1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep per above. Article meets PROF #1. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:51, 28 July 2019 (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.