Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Maciejovsky

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. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Maciejovsky

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Business, Economics, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Faulty nomination statement appears to examine only WP:GNG, the wrong notability criterion, and then claim without support that this examination applies to WP:PROF. But it doesn't. And the article doesn't appear particularly promotional to me; it reports neutrally on the subject's career milestones and research topics, as most articles on academics do, and includes some minor awards that I might not have included (the Raymond S. Nickerson Award is merely a best paper award, and I would not usually list a teaching award from the subject's employer), but that could be down to the preferences or inexperience of the article creator. Maciejovsky's citation record appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, but I'm putting it down as a weak keep because I think this is a high-citation field. The awards are insufficient for #C2 but we only need one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regarding notability, there is, of course, room for subjectivity; however, it seems that the profile of the academic meets the bar of "week keep," as outlined by David Eppstein. The academic and his work are featured in independent and objective sources, his teaching is evaluated publicly (ratemyprofessor), his work is moderately highly cited (google scholar), and his network is firmly established with other researchers (and their wikipedia pages). Notability for academics is met, for instance, by WP:PROF#C1. "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure," which the article subject meets, as he was granted tenure at an R1 institution. The TED talk is also something that is rare and impactful (6,900 views on youtube) Gooseberry487 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gooseberry487 is the article creator. TedX talks are legion, and 6,900 views for a YT video is nothing special. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The deletion process states that 'everyone including you [the article creator] is welcome to contribute to the discussion.' Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The weak keep above is by me, not Spiderone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you! Fixed it. Gooseberry487 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. The article is well researched and provides ample sources of notability. It′s in alignment with thousands of articles on impactful academics. VeritasOM (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only activity for this account has been to vote in this AfD. The repeated use of "impactful" suggests that this may be a sock of the article creator, Gooseberry487. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned me, allow me to clearly state that I neither wrote nor encouraged the vote above. Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations in Google Scholar appear strong: nine works over 100 citations -- even in a citation-heavy field -- seems adequate to meet WP:PROF to me. Also, while the creator does not appear to have edited very widely, the article was accepted by the AfC process. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if improved the citations are high enough, and are mostly in very good journals. ( not merely the minimal ">100" -- they are 331, 324, 216, 212, 204, 124, 107......) But many of the claimed academic appointments are appointments are as a post doc or fellow, not as a member of the faculty. An article that avoids specifying this does not give me the impression of being competently written, especially because it omits the details of the citations, which is the strongest part, as we judge WP:PROF. I would normally say, return to draft, but it's been extensively edited since its been there. I would not have approved it at AfC, because as is obvious from this nomination, it does not make the notability clear enough. So, given the actual underlying notability, I am in process of rewriting according to our usual standards. I'll finish that tomorrow this time--i cant work any further tonight. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2022 (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.