Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Sztando

Add links
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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Sztando[edit]

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

Andrzej Sztando (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)

Fails WP:NPROF. It is a nicely written biography, but of an academic who is just not notable yet (WP:TOOSOON). No major awards or positions held, no significant impact, google scholar citation numbers are not bad but don't indicate much of an impact ([1]). And not much to pass WP:NBIO in general. PS. Also a likely WP:VANITY article written by the subject or someone connected closely to him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both User:StraussInTheHouse and I found this subject notable through the AfC process and that he meets WP:PROF. Subject has written an extensive number of publications and has won some more local awards. Allegations that the subject wrote the article are countered by the author's plan statement on talk that they are not the subject just interested in this area of study. Many academic articles are written by people that know them, but I don't see where the nominator asked the author if they have a COI. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Legacypac: Hoe does the subject meet WP:PROF? His two-digit publication record is rather average (ping User:Randykitty for sanity check), and the local university awards are the lowest possible type of an award one can achieve, and often they are handed to all members of the faculty after working for several years in a given position. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Bronze Medal for Long Service does not contribute to notability, but his contributions to city planning and economic development are notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Can you explain how his contributions are notable? He didn't receive any awards for them. The bloated sections entitled 'Application of scientific research results' is simply a list of few articles that cited him. His citation record as shown on Google Scholar is average - not bad, but does not suggest major impact (plus, again, significant impact would usually be documented by awards and/or significant coverage). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Seems to pass WP:NPROF. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having looked at it a second time it is clear he is not notable. h-index isnt great for an economist who did his habilitation 18 years ago, and who is still not a full professor. Moving from assistant to associate is another indication of a career economist who is non notabile. The medal for long service length as a criteria for notability is exceedingly poor. I showed up for 18 years and now I'm not notable. Not a chance. scope_creepTalk 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scope creep: I am sorry but you are twice wrong. Firstly, he did habilitation not 18 years ago but in 2018, it means 1 year ago. See: http://www.ue.wroc.pl/p/wydzialy/ne/WNE_2017/uchwala_rw_w_sprawie_nadania_st._dr_hab.__sztando_.pdf And it was with all three very good reviews of habilitation reviewers appointed by Central Commission for Degrees and Titles, see: http://www.ck.gov.pl/promotion/id/16755/type/l.html Secondly, the academic career path in Poland is as follows: assistant professor (before phd), adjunct professor (after phd), associate professor (after habilitation), extraordinary professor (after habilitation with significant achievements), full professor (after obtaining professor title from President of Poland). Sztando is now on position of extraordinary professor, see: http://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html (in Polish "profesor nadzwyczajny" means "extraordinary professor"). So moving from assistant to associate is regular, not bad but good career move. When it comes to full professorship, the average age of people on the day of awarding them the title of full professor of economic sciences in 2007 was 60.5 years. See table 4: http://mazowsze.hist.pl/35/Rocznik_Towarzystwa_Naukowego_Warszawskiego/874/2011/33813/ I do not have newer data, but as we see in this table, it has grown since 2003, so probably is not smaller today. It means that is not easy to become a full professor of economics in Poland... For Sztando it is last career step to have full professor title, but he is now 48 years old only, so he has time to do it. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my opinion Sztando passed three WP:PROF criteria:

Criterion #1: Sztando's scientific publications have been cited 388 times in peer-reviewed scientific publications till 23rd of August 2017. Here is a list of them submitted during his successful habilitation procedure: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / achievements) Is 388 a lot? When it comes to public management, yes. In addition, Criterion #1 says: "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account" and says: "Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences". Public management is a young scientific discipline with small number of scientific journals and with no comercial support/interest like traditional, old management, but is extremely important because society, economy and environment deeply depend on it. Criterion #1 says as well: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: ...named lectures or named lecture series". We can see Sztando's certificates/confirmations on named lectures delivered at universities in 11 countries of 4 continents, here: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / recomendations). In Criterion #1: "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: ...service on editorial boards of scholarly publications". Sztando serves as a member of the Editorial Committee and the International Scientific Program Council of the journal Economic Alternatives (Bulgaria) (see: https://www.unwe.bg/eajournal/en ), as well as member of Editorial Team of Urban Studies and Public Administration (USA) (see: http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa/about/editorialTeam ). I think that it is also important that he is an expert monitor of Research Executive Agency of European Commission which agency manages the research and innovation program Horizon 2020 - the largest one in the European Union. See: https://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html

Criterion #2. He received Bronze Medal for Long Service. Polish State Act of October 16, 1992 on Orders and distinctions (Journal of Laws 2019, item 25) in Article 18a. says: "The prize for exemplary, exceptionally conscientious performance of duties resulting from professional work in the service of the State is the Medal for the Long-Term Service", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19920900450/U/D19920450Lj.pdf The executive ordinance to this act is the Ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland on the detailed procedure in cases concerning the awarding of orders and badges and templates of relevant documents. This ordinance contains a template of the application for a discussed medal and in its 18th point it needs "justification of the application, with particular regard to exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20140000064/O/D20140064.pdf It is not true that the President of the Republic of Poland gives these medals for just being at work for specific amount of time (this is only a one of formal prerequisites of application. It would be illogical by the way). He gives them for "exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions". In the case of Sztando, it was a scientific work, the application of its results in the practice of Polish public management and the scientific awards won.

Criterion #7. He has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. His research results are largely utilized by public managers/authorities in not only Polish practice of strategic management of local and regional development. There is a number of local and regional development strategies implemented in Poland (for voivodeships, provinces, counties, communes, cities etc.) which use those results (public management methods, tools, procedures, rules etc. developed by Sztando). Additionally he is an full author of dozens of them. We can see examples in projected Wikipedia article. It is rare that the research results in public management are so widely used in practice. And we have to remember that each strategy deals with number of long term investments and other public activities, the value of which is calculated in from hundreds of millions up to few billions of PLN (1Eur=4PLN). If it is not "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", what is?

Summarizing, in my opinion, Sztando is notabile academic measured by their academic achievements. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iszop63: It is always nice to have the creator contribute here. Your arguments are certainly throughout. Regardless of the notability of the subject, however, and irrelevant of this discussion outcome, could you comment on whether you have any WP:COI in relation to the subject? (Basically: are you the subject, have you been paid or ordered by the subject to write this entry?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I am the author of this article but it is not my autobiography. I am not a subject of this article. I can prove it by meeting personally anyone interested or talking by him/her by phone - according to wish. I am/was/will not (be) connected to the subject in any private, professional or other way as well. Andrzej Sztando is not my family member, friend, client, employee etc. and vice versa. I do/did not have any financial and other relationships with him. There is no WP:COI in relation to the subject. I am just passionate of local and regional development (not academic, not authority member), so I am going to enrich Wikipedia with information on categories and persons connected to it, from Central European Countries especially. And I want to do it fully in line with Wikipedia rules and vision. In my opinion categories and persons connected with local and regional development' paradigm and successful practice (it happens rarely) are important to economy, society and science, especially to ones from developing countries. This is also the reason why I devote my time and energies to this discussion. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iszop63: You have just described somebody who fails WP:NPROF exactly. If he only habilitated last year, he is certainly not notable. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: The date of habilitation is not a criterion of notability in WP:NPROF Achieving habilitation or not at all is not criterion in WP:NPROF as well. Please let's keep our discussion within WP:NPROF criteria. If we use other criteria, it will mean that we completely ignore WP:NPROF and the consensus of its authors and we want to issue judgments based on our private views. Regards Iszop63 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Habilitation is a certification to enable a person to teach. The Habilitation article states in the lede:
is the key for access to a professorship in many European countries
This is indicative of a the person that is at the beginning of their career and is therefore non-notable. Combined with their low h-index is more evidence of non-notability. Iszop63, I have posted an entry up at coin regarding you clear conflict of interest. That should get a few more eyes on this. scope_creepTalk 09:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: You are wrong because you do not distinguish used in Poland names of positions at universities from the names of academic degrees and the name of a scientific title. In Poland, habilitation is the highest scientific degree, after which one can still apply for the academic title of professor (professor is not scientific degree but title given by President of Poland) see: [[2]] Under the habilitated doctor are doctor, master, and bachelor. In addition to the names of academic degrees and title, the names of positions at universities function, and in each of them is the word professor. Starting from the lowest: assistant professor (after master and before phd), adjunct professor (after phd), associate professor (after habilitation), extraordinary professor (after habilitation with significant achievements), full professor (after obtaining professor title from President of Poland). So Sztando as with habilitated doctor degree at position of extraordinary professor is not at beginning of their of their career but almost in the top of it. When it comes to conflict of interest I have putted my statement on it firstly in article talk on 1 January 2019 and secondly today in this discussion as an answer to @Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus:. By the way, I repeat, habilitation is not a criterion of notability in WP:NPROF Please let's keep our discussion within WP:NPROF criteria. Thanks Iszop63 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iszop63: Thank you replying re COI. I accept in WP:AGF that you have no COI here. I also agree that the date of habilitation is not relevant here. Overall I think this is a borderline case, but TBH I think I will stop nominating borderline PROF cases here, since I think PROF needs to be more inclusive (it is much more difficult to pass PROF than some SPORT-related criteria). Right now this discussion may be closed as no-censensus if there are no other comments, and I will not challenge that, through I am open to further comments from other editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the WP:COI case up at coin. scope_creepTalk 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet any criterion of WP:PROF. I don't have an h-index calculator any more, as it required using Chrome, which I won't do; but based on this page, I estimate his at 7 (someone please correct me if I am wrong). This page lists the 2577 economists with the highest h-index; the highest "score" is 90, the lowest is 14. Sztando does not have a full professorship, has not received a major academic award, etc. The page may be "nicely written", but is simply a copy of his bio (suitably licenced, so no copyright violation). As far as I can see, there's no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources here (again, do please correct me if I'm wrong), so WP:GNG is not met. Almost all the "references" are in fact his own publications; once those and the copied content are removed there's nothing left. His self-written bio belongs on his university webpage, where it already is, and not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: out of interest, why won't you use Chrome? I have a few issues with it regarding privacy so I'm thinking of switching to Firefox. SITH (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrzej_Sztando&oldid=1137565898"