Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uroš Pinterič

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Uroš Pinterič

Uroš Pinterič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I have serious doubts this biography meets WP:PROF. I've looked at [1] and the numbers seem on the low side. I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Citations, as Piotrus surmised, way too low to indicate notability. Horrible resume-like article does little to indicate any notability and, in fact, associate/assistant profs rarely are notable. Fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not delete: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics Additionally, full CV is quoted, with significant amount of academic functions especially regarding the age (dismissing the argument on ranking and notability - assuming that Piotrus and Randykitty have little knowledge of (especially Slovenian) education system), According to publication activity in the national context the person in question is ranked (on this day) on 7th (out of first 100) position among Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies, Communication studies and narrow political science) (leaving behind many full professors) based on publication outcome, shares 11th position on number of articles in web of Science, and is on 33th position (competing with the people who are in academia much longer time than him) based on number of quotations without auto quotations (info can daily change based on new publications entered to the system - source: SICRIS/WOS). If the data is retrieved for narrow field of political science (politology) his ranking is higher. 4th by publication scoring, 2nd by number of WOS publications, 10th by number of quotations without auto quotations, and 7th based on h-index. He was present in national media - despite these mentions are under actual relevance, since commenting the daily events is far from the actual work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 114 citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC).
• Delete -- not suitable for inclusion; a promotional article on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not delete: based on the logic (not the rules) presented by the request - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Matth%C3%A4us (article exists, despite: google scholar does not return even the first searches on him or his topic (however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) - there is a warning of citation metrics as reliable), the Matthaus article is under-referenced, etc etc. - Argument: I believe that notability issue should be taken in the perspective of the local context (I was proving this part before), with certain level of reservation due to the different standards. However, things shall be documented (I was trying to support the article in question with reliable sources). I was somehow, trying to make some additional argument on the issue raised - it is easy to write delete - no quotations but takes bit more time on reading the things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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.