Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerzy Langer

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Langer

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

s written, this article does not show how the subject passes the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) requirement. Pinging User:David Eppstein who deprodded the prod - please explain why this is "clearly notable". This bio just tells us he is a professor and a fellow in several societies; I am not seeing how this suffices for notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Fellow in several societies" is a triple pass of WP:PROF#C3. In addition searching Google scholar for "author:jm-langer" finds several publications with over 100 citations each, probably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @David Eppstein: C3 specifies "highly selective and prestigious" societies, or an elective position in one that is "a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". C3 names three examples: National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society or an elective position within IEEE - all indeed major and (outside IEEE) household names. Our subject is ~~a member of APS (which anyone can join by paying a membership fee), which clearly doesn't count for anything.~~ He is a member of Warsaw Scientific Society (a substub, but notable per pl wiki sources), which according to pl wiki has a selective membership process (I cannot find it described on its website); in any case it is also not a national level but regional-level organization (at least based on its name); it is also not a household name in Poland, unlike let's say Polish Academy of Sciences would be and as such doesn't appear to be "major". Finally, he is a member in Academia Europaea, an article of (as written) dubious notability, and while it claims to have "membership is by invitation only" (citation needed), it is hardly a prestigious, household name, and again I wouldn't call it "major". As such, as believe C3 does not apply,through I'll ping User:DGG for a 3O. Regarding citation count, I'll ping User:Randykitty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is not a member of APS, he is a fellow of APS. Those two are very different things. APS is a major discipline-specific society similar in importance to IEEE and being selected as a fellow is indeed a high honor. And Academia Europaea is a highly selective Europe-wide academic society, similar in spirit to a national academy. I have no detailed knowledge of the Warsaw Scientific Society; it might be less selective, but it doesn't look it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fellowship in APS seems like a valid criteria, through I am not sure it suffices in itself. Can anyone comment more on the significance and notability of Academia Europaea? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - APS Fellow is sufficient all by its own self. It is a long-standing convention that Fellow rank at any of the major technical societies suffices. Agricola44 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fellow of APS is sufficient in its own right. (This needs to be determined society by society, and merely being selective is not enough-- the way of determining the selectivity is by seeing to what extent it correlates with other criteria) The Academia Europaea is new to me, and I think I need to be ashamed to have to say it. About 90% of the living members list have a sufficiently full CV to judge. Of these, in fields with which I have some familiarity, at least 80% are unmistakable notable by our usual criteria, and it seems clear that probably the other 20% would be also if their publication record were examined. I conclude it is a sufficient criterion. It is also a very useful one for WP, because it includes the humanities--we should be able to quickly add three thousand articles, thus remedying at least for Europe some our our subject biases (at present, we have only about 5% of them; even the deWP has about 8%) . We can add them very quickly indeed, if we decide that copying the list of positions and honours is not copyvio, as lists of facts without any creativity. As for the Warsaw Academy, I am unsure of its relative standing to the Polish Academy of Sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Comment Judging on my experience, I'm sure the real percentage of Academia Europaea members already covered by an article is much higher than that, but many of those articles haven't been inserted into the related category yet. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for admin attention. Given the preceeding comments, I am withdrawing my AfD nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. Agricola44 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2014 (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.