Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janusz Jankowski
=[[Janusz Jankowski]]=
:{{la|Janusz Jankowski}} – (
:({{Find sources|Janusz Jankowski}})
No demonstration that subject fulfils WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 34. Would the nominator like to say why he discounted this factor? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
- Reply. Perhaps I'm just out of my depth here but this factor is not, to me, made evident from the article, hence not taking it into account. Can you elaborate (on how this is evident in the article itself)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:BEFORE. The notability of the *subject* is more important than what is written in the article itself. If the article can be improved, to the point where notability is evident, then it is not a good candidate for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Drop nom. Thanks, that's fair enough and if other editors happen to be party to information which demonstrates the notability of the subject and wish to note this, I am happy to drop the nom.. That said, with the article not demonstrating notability and a google search appearing inconclusive (to my eyes at least) I found the query as to why I had discounted something that is neither evident in the article or that leaps out from a search a little puzzling. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Click on the scholar link two inches above and all will be clear. Such matters are discussed extensively in WP:Prof and its talks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC).
:::::In regard to what you raise in your initial post, no it is not clear to me that the, or how the, link provides the h-index and, whether it does or not (and if it does, apologies for my ignorance), why you would assume I knew it but discounted it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::As I said before, there is extensive discussion of these matters in Wikipedia. Errors are more likely if one edits in areas in which has one has insufficient knowledge. However, many thanks for the withdrawal of the nomination, it lightens the work load. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC).
:::::::If these extensive discussions show how to derive the h-index from the scholar link, this has eluded me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I suspect there is or should be an answer buried somewhere in the footnotes of WP:PROF, but in any case: (1) [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3Aj-Jankowski Search for the author's name] in Google scholar (this usually works best with just a first initial rather than the full name, since some papers are published only with a first initial). (2) If there's a link to a user profile, as [http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=atba3DsAAAAJ&hl=en there is in this case] (and it's the profile of the correct person), then you're lucky: just look at the h-index number near the top right under the photo (all, not since 2007). (3) If not, then look through the search results, counting how many you find that are by the person you're looking for, until your count is at least as large as the "cited by" number of the next paper in the list. The count you stopped at is the h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks David, that's very helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (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.