Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juozas Valiukevičius

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juozas Valiukevičius

[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 notable academic. Can't find any info about him, other than his 1981 thesis and few articles he authored. Renata•3 23:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Clearly fails WP:NBIO. Clearly a vanity page. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @MurrayGreshler: Your "vanity page" comment is an evidence-free personal attack on both Valiukevičius and the article creator. Please be more careful to limit your arguments in these discussions to notability criteria and not your imagined motivations of subjects and editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 -- I apologize for my rash comment (not an "attack") if it was as intemperate and hurtful as @David indicates. But I fail to see how it is an attack in any way on Juozas Valiukevičius unless he is following this thread or edits on Wikipedia. I concede this was not a vanity article but there are plenty of attempts at creating those on WP. MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Lithuania. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article. I thought that any taxon describer is automatically notable for enwiki. I was wrong.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and other notability criteria. ProofRobust 00:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation counts are actually pretty good for a very low-citation field, but that's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and we have no evidence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 November 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.