Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Brodnik

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrej Brodnik

Non-notable Parudox 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• No vote, His name brings up 25,100 Google results. However these results are mostly in Russian, so I'm not very sure.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — no assertion of notability. Feezo (Talk) 07:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Based on the external link, he appears to be a nn university professor --Hyperbole 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mathscinet returns 7 hits, in which of 5 he is the primary author. Some of the papers are in promient or semi-prominent journals, but 7 is still much too low a total and none of the papers are particularly notable. JoshuaZ 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) see below. JoshuaZ 07:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Joshua. Of the 7 MathSciNet hits, all but one are in proceedings. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep: this guy has 15 publications [1] since 1994, not counting ones DBLP couldn't find. The external link is sort of irrelevant: that's for mathematics geneology, which traces people through advisor/student relationships. His home page is here, but it's pretty out of date. He publishes in Theoretical Computer Science where proceedings are much more acceptable than Jitse Niesen implies. See WP:PROFTEST for some guidelines in development. Note that this article has been around since 2002 and doesn't appear to be a vanity article. I will attempt to improve the article somewhat. Mangojuice 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have now improved the article. Mangojuice 20:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As pointed out, proceedings articles are common for computer science. As for whether the article is vanity, I wouldn't say "vanity" is the first thing that comes to mind. For some reason, Wikipedia tends to accumulate a lot of bios of Slovenians. Some of these bios are of noteworthy individuals, while some are not. Given the general lack of information in these articles, it can be difficult to tell what significance their work has, if any. This article on Brodnik is no different. There are no backlinks from articles explaining some crucial piece of his work, no indication of what his greatest theoretical advances are, etc. Thanks to Mangojuice, we at least have a selected papers section, which presumably highlights his most important papers. On the other hand, it's still a mystery why those are his most important papers or what they are about or what impact they have had. I would be much happier if this gap was fixed. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Mango and Chan-ho. JoshuaZ 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete To quote the talk page: "why is this person notable?" Septentrionalis 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, or question for an expert in CS: Is Informatica a notable journal in the field? If so, his being on the editorial board might be evidence of notability.--Deville (Talk) 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Mathscinet turns up two journals with that word in the title: one formerly named "Informatica" and now named "Informatica Vilnius." The other is "Acta Informatica" which seems major. The are editorial boards listed here [2] and [3] but I don't see his name on either. JoshuaZ 17:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The journal's website is at [4] and Brodnik is indeed on the editorial board. I don't see that as being very notable. Parudox 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been around for about 30 years and it's a regional journal for CS of any type. Their web page says their acceptance rate is 50%, which is not so impressive. I didn't recognize any names on the editorial board. As a CS prof, I'd say this journal is pretty minor in the scheme of things. It may be important to Slovenians though. Mangojuice 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on my opinion rendered above. Having read through the points raised here (sorry for being so dismissive to publications in proceedings, I thought that theoretical CS was like maths and that important results are published in journals, possibly in addition to publication in proceedings), I still don't see what distinguises him from the average academic. My own opinion on notability for academics corresponds roughly to WP:PROFTEST, but in my reading none of the criteria in that proposal applies. However, my opinion is very weak, especially because I think that if the consensus (or the lack thereof) on notability as evidence in AfD discussions on other subjects would be applied to academics, then the article would have been kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2006 (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.