Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. No evidence of reliable sources about this guy was presented. W.marsh 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski

Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-Notable Stellatomailing 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. - per nom. We are not at the stage where all university professors get a Wikipedia article. Balcer 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
I do not see any independent source in the article asserting his expertise. That does not mean he is not an expert; but it is not in the article.
2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.
Same as above.
3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
Same as above.
4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
The sheer number of publications (per article) is impressive, but not sourced. (broken link) No statements about the quality or impact of the said work from independent sources.
5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.
Not detailed.
6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
I see biographical entries in International Biographical Centre and American Biographical Institute, per the Wikipedia articles not very solid institutions. One patent (not sourced). No awards.
Please understand I do not have anything against keeping this article, but so far the article fails the professor test.

Stellatomailing 08:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - excellent resume, but what did this guy really do? Name just one original research done by him, which was reprinted in at least one notable scientific paper like "Nature", "Science", "Physical Review", "Annals of Physics and Chemistry", "Fusion Technology", "Acta Helvetica" or even Tuesday's issue of New York Times" when there is always a scientific section. List of institute publications he participated in in which he was also an Editor-in-Chief, school books, manuals, specifications, script reviews, international conference listings, etc, doesn't really matter since he has done that as a part of his regular job. Any lab assistant or technician also produces a lot of paper, but that doesn't make him notable, neither a pompous title does, doesn't it? greg park avenue 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Fails notability test as shown above. --Whsitchy 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While the CV layout is terrible, he seems to have some publications under his belt.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 38 books! That alone seems like enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF. But the article is very badly written. —David Eppstein 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep subject to re-write - there is enough here to suggest that JBL may well be worth an article if the necessary information were properly presented (by someone with the neccessary language skills) HeartofaDog 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Greg is right that the biographical sources listed do not count for anything. I am less than happy with this, mainly because I can not judge the notability of the publications; the books appear to be either textbooks or conference proceedings (I assume red. means editor) Piotrus, could you help with the titles of the books? Worldcat shows a number of them, but only as held in Nukat, the Polish Union Catalog--I could not find one in a US library. (there's a prolific writer on Politics by that name, & I think one or two others, who do have books in US libraries) I went to look for publications in international journals, so I can tell the standard--the best index for European publications is Scopus--but it lists only 2 other people by that name; the important one is a theoretical physicist & the other a chemist. However, he's in Management science, an applied science, and a subject where the work is very country-specific, so the book and journal result is not necessarily indicative. As far as I call tell, the list of Universities he is affiliated with, though respectable, does not include the top-flight Polish universities. Pietrus?? He did supervise 13 PhD dissertations, which is significant.--
Given the number of committees he is a member of, I suspect he is more of an academic administrator --at which he seems extremely adept--than a researcher. It is possible to have a very high number of insubstantial publications without any of them counting for much. I still think he qualifies--but if our local expert gives only a Week Keep, so do I. DGG 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; according to the article, his bio has been included in a number of biographical books, so notability has been determined by multiple independent groups. John Vandenberg 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The biographical books charge for including subjects. (please see #6 above).Stellatomailing 19:37, 3 June 2007 (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.