Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Jaroniec

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jaroniec

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

Non-notable associate professor who does not appear to meet WP:GNG or even a single criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No assertion of notability even exists in the article; I nearly deleted it under WP:CSD#A7 but chose WP:PROD instead. Author declined WP:PROD and has claimed on my talk page that "awards and peer-reviewed articles" (none independently cited) make him notable. Frank | talk 14:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep String of awards and citations to his work establish notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the awards seem to be anything that would be covered by WP:ACADEMIC. An NSF fellow is basically a postdoc position, not an award and not a fellow of some prestigious society. The same goes for most other awards, which are bascially all just minor awards or grants (the one from the Alzheimer's Association, for example). However, he has a GS h-index of 27 and over 3000 citations on GS. As usual, these figures are a bit lower on the Web of Science (25 and 2500), but in both cases this is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reasoned note, but...can you show where that criterion is met? It reads (in part): "...demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Sure - he's been cited, but...that's what academics do. That does not automatically translate to "independent reliable sources". Publishing a bajillion papers doesn't automatically translate to "significant impact". If he is actually notable, why does he not show up in any news hits whatsoever? That hardly seems to suggest "independent reliable sources". Frank | talk 00:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hundreds of scholars citing him are independent reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF C1: "the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." A GS h-index of 27 is well over our usual notability threshold. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Randy Kitty - the subject is highly cited and his research has a signifigant impact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2013 (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.