Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zdzisław Józef Porosiński

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. Sorry folks, I'm not convinced to delete or keep with this one based on the arguments presented. See what you can do with the article, if anything, and it's always welcome to be renominated for deletion. Thanks for assuming good faith with my decision. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Józef Porosiński[edit]

[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)

Was accepted through the AfC process, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and am not seeing how he passes WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I found a obituary in Mathematica Applicanda which indicates notability and is clearly a RS:

Kamińska, Agnieszka, and Krzysztof J. Szajowski. "Zdzisław Józef Porosiński: a memoir." Mathematica Applicanda 45.2 (2017).

Best --hroest 18:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's promising, but it has the same authors as the shorter obituary already used as a source in the article, so doesn't yet meet the requirement (assuming we're going through WP:GNG here) of having multiple in-depth sources that are independent both of each other and of the subject. The other sources in the article aren't really in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, we'd have to be using GNG, since I can't see anything which meets WP:NSCHOLAR, unless I missed something. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Multiple reliable sources (although obituaries, but written by scholars): in addition to the one mentioned above, there is [1]. Yes, same authors, but different journal and the article is somewhat rewritten. So it's kind of borderline whether he meets GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources. While he does not clearly meet NPROF (according to GScholar, his most cited paper, The full-information best choice problem with a random number of observations from 1987, has 52 cites, second, co-authored with A. Kamińska, On robust Bayesian estimation under some asymmetric and bounded loss function, from 2009, 22, then everything else is in single digits), he does meet the Polish Wikipedia's one (I just mention it since the article is sure to remain on pl wiki) as pl wiki criteria see habilitation as sufficient for notability (this was discussed for NPROF but did not gain sufficient support for becoming our policy). Overall I think that we are way too notable for sportspeople, and not enough for academics, so given this is a borderline case I argue for keeping. It's ridiculous we would keep a biography of some soccer player who just played in one bigger match, fails GNG but meets NSPORT, yet delete a biography of a scholar who had two academic obituaries published about him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while he may make the grade for Polish WP, I see no notability for the English project under WP:GNG or NPROF. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment I'm not seeing enough coverage or indication of notability. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotr and hroest. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold with a third round - any other experienced editors able to take a look? I'm leaning on a weak keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2021 (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.