Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (Second nomination)

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 delete per G4 by Will Beback.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass[edit]

(Auto)biography of a mathematician who does not, I believe, pass WP:PROF. Previous nomination last August ended in delete, roughly a dozen !votes to two, and has since been blanked by Jimbo. I would encourage you to look at his own resume here to come to a conclusion about his notability. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more detailed in my nomination, especially as the previous AfD has been blanked. Main contributions appear to have been on Zariski surfaces, the importace of which I cannot speak to, but which didn't impress many participants in the last AfD. His web page lists 32 publications between 1980 and 1994; a solid record but hardly outstanding. His political activity is certainly non-notable (one editor pointed out that he was not even in the NY Times' of candidates). This article has expunged most of the name-dropping and dubious claims of the previous article, although a section on work with Solidarity has been marked as "citation needed". Overall, a mathematician of borderline importance with a tendency to WP:COI. bikeable (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make things clearer: the debate was blanked but the history is still available here. Please read everyone. Also this is not the second time but maybe fifth time the article has been made. See this list. Mhym

Weak Keep I think his political candidacy may give him additional notability outside academia as per WP:NOTE, although admittedly it does seem quite marginal for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ The work on Zariski Surfaces is quite fundamental.Outstanding students listed in Wikipedia.Political activity consistant from pre solidarity days in Poland to current run for US Congress District 22 of Florida.Created a coalition of independent candidates in Florida against considerable odds. The Ulam Quarterly Journal was a true milestone in electronic publishing and continues to exert considerable influence on research. Dr Piotr Blass

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above anon vote is the subject of the article. --Salix alba (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out accordingly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I think Blass is notable for the Zariski surface, although less so for the political candidacy (there are very many write in candidates in all sort of elections, no mainstream coverage other than basic candidate statements). However there is a lot of negative coverage, just google to find it. The article has problems with WP:AUTO being written almost entirely by the subject, the previous version deleted had a lot positive spin and name dropping. Currently the article is reasonable OK but there are sign of the same material creeping in again. I'd be happier if the article stayed very brief which would be inline with other mathematical bios of similar stature. The Solidarity stuff is new and I don't think it can be verified. --Salix alba (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have seen this all before [1]. There is nothing notable about Blass. As can be seen from the history and list of contributions by anon -- this is Blass himself. His electoral activity is below the radar. His thesis "Zariski surface" is cited the total of 4 times - not enough for notability as other suggested. The importance of the "Ulam quarterly" is unsourced and POV. The rest is all name dropping. Mhym 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~

Thank you Salix Alba for your objectivity! As for mainstream coverage there are two articles in our Palm Beach Post both available on line and also a couple of positive comments in the Sun Sentinel dealing with the 2006 governor election. Getting mainstream media coverage in Florida is quite difficult as you may know as as evidenced by the Sun Sentinel article. I am in the process of getting letters from the Michnik people about my role in the democratic opposition in Poland in the period 1961-1989 and shall make them available to the wikipedia community. Thank you for reckognizing the role of the Ulam stuff and collaboration with Grothendieck. Also several of my students are already in Wikipedia. Today is MLK day: We shall overcome! best wishes Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com ps I believe that my friend Mhem is at the University of Miami---Nobody is a prophet in his own country--- shalom Dr Piotr Blass pb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, given his numerous runs for office, ect. Mcr616 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepnotable as a politican.at least.DGG 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ (repeated vote) actual number of citations for piotr blass from google scholar is 91

and not four as claimed above . Also the book "Zariski Surfaces and differential equations in char p>0 " by Piotr Blass and Jeff Lang has sold thousands of copies via Marcel Dekker and can be found in most research libraries in America,Europe,Asia and Australia as can be verified by library search

as for the importance of the Ulam Quarterly Journal questioned above it contains several papers by Grothendieck,Jacobson,Erdos,Duncan etc clearly world class mathematicians

thank you

dr piotr blass

Mhym said there were four hits for "Zariski surface", not "Piotr Blass". When I did a Google Scholar search for "Piotr Blass", I got 23 hits. [2] However, you need to look at the quality of the hits. Some are duplicates of each other and others are completely irrelevant and inconsequential. For example, one of the Google Scholar hits is a letter sent to the editor of AMS requesting that people send Dr Blass notes so he can compile them into a book for an ill colleague. The 91 hits you claim are for a search of the name without quotation marks. The problem with that is it brings up hits for completely different people, such as many for Andreas Blass, Piotr Sztompka and Piotr Pieranski. That is completely misleading. Heck, my name searched your way brings up 629 Google Scholar hits! [3] Sarah 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having trouble seeing a viable bio here. This article is a completely unreferenced autobiography. None of the possible assertions of notability have sources. Therefore, delete per WP:V and WP:BLP. There's also obvious WP:COI issues. There are 227 (of 607 total) distinct G-hits for this name,[4] but it's difficult to find any that qualify as reliable sources, not WP mirrors or not apparently self-authored. Delete and re-salt. Sarah 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable mathematically. Gleuschk 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ (repeated vote) Thank you Sarah for your comments.

If you google piotr blass you will find over 20 000 hits with at least several thousand totally relevent.Since you are not a mathematician I apologize that my work is a little hard to appreciate as it deals with quite esoteric algebraic geometry. Still it has been and continues to be quite notable as evidenced by the interest around the world in zariski surfaces well documented in wikipedia. I am the founder of this theory.All the best Dr Piotr Blass

And as I said before, googling someone's name without quotation marks is extremely misleading. Searching my name in this way brings up 288,000 g-hits [5]. It proves absolutely nothing. Your name in quotation marks brings up 227 distinct (of 607 total) G-hits [6] Perhaps you would care to respond to that? What we are looking for are verifiable, reliable sources, not hundreds of hits for all the blogs and forums you've posted to plus thousands more for pages that are not at all relevant.

Wikipedia doesn't discredit an opinion simply because someone may or may not be a mathematician. Please deal with the relevant policies and guidelines. If the article does not conform with our policies, we cannot keep it. Sarah 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah for your stimulating comments.I certainly need to do a better job in explaining the relevence of my mathematical work.Perhaps my collaborators and students will also help me here.For example Jeffrey Lang ,Mark Spivakovski and several others have offered to do so. I will be happy to send to you Sarah some of my expository work.Perhaps my paper on Mathematics and Civilization would interest you? best wishes.

dr piotr blass

Request to mathematicians:Please take a look at my book:Zariski surfaces and differential equations in characteristic p>0,Marcell Dekker probably in your library since 1987 as well as my work in Compositio as you are evaluating notability. Also Jeffrey Lang ,Chris Skinner,Scot Flansburg are among my rather numerous students.Finally I studied and collaborated with Oscar Zariski , John Tate,David Mumford,Heisuke Hironaka, Alexander Grothendieck and Pierre Deligne among others.

I know that wikipedia will not wish to act in the sad spirit of a cultural revolution china style.

thank you for not deleting the piotr blass page in advance!

Galois Lives!

best

Dr piotr blass

Dear Wikipedia friends,

One more remark:The main proponents of delete and those who question notability have chosen to remain anonymous.We do not know their names. On the other hand those who support my entry are out in the open we know their names and their qualifications. I may be from the old school but let me say that I never paid much attention to anonymous letters and attacks against my qualifications. I hope that Jim Wales and the senior editors of Wikipedia will see to it that my entry is judged fairly. With zariski surfaces and ega 5 work firmly recognized by wikipedia and with my students such as Jeffrey Lang having their own pages it makes very little sense to deny notability of my work and political activity. Thank you Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com www.piotrblass.com

ps:I just looked at some of the talk pages of critics and proponents of deletion I found sarcasm and hi fives and taking turns to criticise and delete. I am asking Jim Wales to look into this situation. I am sure that the truth will prevail. Best wishes to all Dr Piotr Blass

Delete. Write-in candidacy for a major political office is easy to obtain in the United States and very few such people gain enough support to be notable. We went through this a long time ago when User:Jason Gastrich tried to use his write-in candidacy for governor of California to bolster a vanity bio. I could look up the exact stats again if anyone's interested, but Gastrich received about six votes. The scholarship doesn't meet WP:BIO. I suggest Dr. Blass devote more of his energies to building a real-world reputation because, after a previous article deletion and a canvas for support at WP:ANI, this looks like gaming the system. Durova^Charge 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. "Piotr Blass" has been deleted several several times.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, speedy G4 if possible. Self-promotion all over the place, but I do not see independent reliable sources that show him notable. (As a note, I believe recreating this article is an abuse of the courtesy blanking that Jimbo gave him. If he wants to be gone from Wikipedia, let him leave. If he wants to stay, then restore the previous AFD to its closing version, here. Courtesy blanking is for people who leave.) -- Fan-1967 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candadicy for public office without significant press coverage is not notable. The scholarship doesn't meet WP:BIO. This article only appeals to a very limited audience, namely those who already know him. No encyclopedic value. Any of his books, if peer-reviewed in reputable field publications may be notable for their own stand-alone article(s). If this article does stay, it needs MAJOR rework to achieve NPOV and wikistyle. Jerry lavoie 04:01, 17 January 2007 (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.