Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paweł Urban

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. Sandstein 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Urban[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)

This page should be deleted because of lack of its relevance to Wikipedia. (I am completing the nomination on behalf of the user editing from IP address 180.177.1.164. I have as yet no opinion myself.) Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC. This person has invented a couple of techniques that have been confirmed by secondary sources. Seems notable to me. William2001^(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but this is way too promotional. Take out all this "popularizing" and "numerous" promo crap and I'd change my vote. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been modified accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 10:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disagree that there is evidence here that he is a notable academic. There has been substantial editing of this page (and others) by Urban himself (or someone close to him; see User:Natriumchloratum) as promotional material. For example, there's little evidence that Urban's techniques "fizzy extraction", "Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry", and "Time-resolved mass spectrometry" are themselves notable, but they are used as evidence on Urban's page of his notability. All any of these entries do is showcase a bunch of citations to Urban's own papers (and those of his colleagues). This whole pack of articles just seems like a giant promotional circle jerk. Being on a handful of editorial boards doesn't make you notable, esp. for mega-journals like Scientific Reports, and I don't see any evidence of him receiving any major awards that would make him notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. However I removed the routine and self-sourced section on his accomplishments; all academics publish and we can only include that sort of material if we have published secondary sources by other people that go into non-trivial detail about their significance. The keep is weak because what remains of the article is very minimal, and because the evidence of COI editing is problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2019 (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.