Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Stachowski (linguist)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Stachowski (linguist)

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

Lacks notability. The only reference for this BLP is a meager, self-published (?) web page. - Mr X 00:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marek Stachowski is a well-known researcher in his field, and several of his works are widely cited (his "Dolganischer Wortschatz" is cited 30 times on Google scholar, and he has in total 250 citations, which is more than many scholars who already have a Wikipedia entry. Phonology (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least add a list of his works to his article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (changed after subsequent comments with weblinks). The only ext. link in this stub leads to a wacky place that does not support Internet Explorer at all. How provincial is that! Poeticbent talk 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "wacky place" is Professor Stachowski's home page, which appears to be written in HTML5. I've never seen the availability of external links discussed as a requirement for inclusion, though. Cnilep (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know exactly what content of that unavailable page is unless you created it yourself. And don't label me with WP:PRETTY because I'm talking here about the lack of reliable sources, which is a lot more serious. Poeticbent talk 08:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The web page works just fine using Firefox; as your comment says, it does not work in Internet Explorer. Apparently HTML5 works in IE9 but not earlier versions. Since there is a reference section (albeit a pretty thin one), external links are ~~not~~ no longer crucial for reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, prof. dr hab. Marek Stachowski himself does everything in his power to make himself invisible. There's no picture and not a single word of intro at his own faculty listing webpage. No date of birth. No academic background. No bio. Please help him disapear from Wikipedia. He is a very private person. Poeticbent talk 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but we do not censor the web, for good or bad. If he is notable, he stays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep—Google Scholar returns 433 hits; about half of these appear to be papers by or citing Stachowski. This is slightly complicated by the apparent existence of another Marek Stachowski, a musician. I'll try a search in Web of Science or other journal indices when I get back to the office, but for now it looks like he may pass WP:PROF. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found 26 sources by Professor Stachowski in MLA International Bib, but only 9 in Web of Knowledge. I put the latter down to spotty coverage in the database, not any lack of influence by the scholar. By way of comparison, WoK found only 5 hits for Walt Wolfram, compared to over a hundred in MLA. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see he is the editor-in-chief (possibly the only editor) of the journal Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia. Does this journal count as "major" and "well-established" per WP:PROF #8? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorship of a major well-established academic journal does satisfy notability for academics. Apparently (though, I gather, unofficially) "notable per WP standards" is often taken to imply "major well-established" journal in AfD discussions of scholars. But see Talk:Jagiellonian University#Proposal to merge Studia etymologica cracoviensia here for disagreement on the journal's notability. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 02:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Professor Stachowski has a long academic publishing history, but on Google Scholar I'm not seeing the citation rates that would indicate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Nearly all the cites are in the single figures, with a few papers that rise above ten citations. The highest one I saw had 31 citations (the Dolganischer Wortschatz), and the next highest had 17. (I'm not including the 95 citations for The Turkic Languages because Stachowski was only one of several contributors.) From WP:PROF: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." I also don't think that the journal Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal" judging from the discussion above, so I don't think WP:PROF #8 applies. I can't find any other criteria of WP:PROF that Professor Stachowski might pass, and I can't find any reliable sources to count towards WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find evidence that his journal is a major one of the type that would pass WP:PROF#C8, or that he passes any other WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is an author of a number of books ([1]), I believe this means he passes notability requirements for published academics. Whether the books have had significant impact, I am not sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:39, 19 November 2012 (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.