Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedrich Benes

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 WP:SNOWish keep.. Consensus isn't going to change, safe to close a few hours early. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedrich Benes[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Conference Chair is not the same as that of a university department. Brycehughes (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the page has been significantly extended - coverage in Nature, Scientific American, and in the news. Gfxnut (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar [1] lists him as fourth most highly cited among the researchers who list "procedural modeling" as one of their specialties, although he is much lower down on the lists for computer graphics or geometric modeling. He's a full professor at a good research university. And he has five publications with over 100 citations each, probably enough for WP:PROF#C1. And Eurographics chair, although not enough for notability by itself, does indicate some confidence in him by his peers in the same research area. But although I think it's above threshold, it's a pretty marginal case. Except for one Scientific American blog post apparently on his "Stress Relief" paper (in which he is in a middle positition among five non-alphabetical authors) I didn't find much in the way of independent sources describing him or his works in any significant depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)(27.97.181.147 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The news and Sources clearly stated the importance.31.Björklinge is previously deleted article,but now added reliable sources Sjorford (talk)
Keep. Just passes WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- In addition to the above arguments, I'm seeing news coverage / commentary on his work. I don't see a reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2017 (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.