Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miloš Zahradník

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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Miloš Zahradník

1. Substubby, unmaintained.
2. Founded by his co-author (of an elementary undergraduate textbook) and obviously friend.
3. I sincerely doubt his notability: he's just another of dozens (or hundreds?) of Czech assistant professors (? the Czech title is docent) teaching teaching mathematics, or whatever it is - even his official department page is pretty much empty template, no publications to be seen. Nothing much elsewhere in Google, except from white noise from a TV station manager of the same name. --Malyctenar 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently notable as published author; having a lousy personal web page isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Long way from convinced subject is notable as a published author per WP:BIO, certainly not as a professor. Deizio 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment mathscinet returns 17 papers mainly in mathematical physics and statistical mechanics, none of them seem to be in very notable journals, although two of them are in the Journal of Statistical Physics which may be a significant journal in that field (I don't know much about mathematical physics). No vote for now. JoshuaZ 04:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- JSP is a pretty strong journal in its field. --Deville (Talk) 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I get 29 hits at MathSciNet. [1] -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, I just redid the search and got 29 also. I have no idea why I thought it was 17. JoshuaZ 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It certainly doesn't appear to me that his linear algebra book is all that well known. For all I know, it could be just another one of hundreds of textbooks that appear and vanish into oblivion every few years. If any of the folks who found reason to find the book notable care to explain to me why, I would be more than happy to change my mind. Otherwise, I don't really see how it benefits Wikipedia to accumulate articles on random textbook authors. --C S (Talk) 03:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Deville's comment and 29 general hits on mathscinet. JoshuaZ 05:39, 24 March 2006 (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.