Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zarzycki

[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)

Disputed Draftification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:NPROF. In an AFC review this was stated: "According to https://ludzie.nauka.gov.pl/ln/profiles/QAO46PMcoxU/publications he has a total of 8 publications; Scopus says 21 with 104 citations. This is far short of what we require to pass WP:NPROF. Note that being a Department Chair or Dean does not qualify him either." by Ldm1954, with whom I agree. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Poland. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP created almost simultaneously in the English and Polish Wikipedias. At least for the English Wikipedia, he falls far short of satisfying any of WP:NPROF with a decidedly modest h-factor, publication record and no major awards. Originator (who uses two accounts, albeit acknowledging this) argued first that he passes WP:NPROF#C1, then changed it to a pass of WP:NPROF#C6 when he moved the page back to main after draftification. This despite an AfC comment that Dean's don't qualify and about publication history (subsequently removed by Laura240406 as AfC cleanup, but still there in the history). No attempt to repair other deficiencies to the article which are clearly tagged. While novice editors should have some leeway, it is not appropriate for them to make up their own interpretation of WP:NPROF.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record on Google Scholar is difficult to separate from a different biologist with the same name but I agree that he appears to pass neither WP:PROF#C1 nor #C6, and we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein we don't have any evidence or claim for any other notability criterion, in this regard, kindly see my comments below. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In Poland, the President grants the academic title of Professor. This is a significant academic achievement, often awarded to individuals who have made substantial contributions to their field of study. This is a definite WP:NPROF #2 and #4 pass and I think if a source can be provided in this regard, then this can be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment above, this source (see PDF) confirms it and this conferment is a clear NPROF#2 as being a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by the argument brought forward regarding WP:NPROF. With regards to NPROF#1, his Scopus profile shows 21 total publications and a h index of 7 (note that there are at least 6 people publishing under the same name but I checked the publications and it seems Scopus has properly distinguished them). Based on his citation record, I conclude that he doesnt pass #1. With regards to NPROF#6 there is no evidence he held a post beyond Dean which does not fulfill #6. With regards to the document that Vanderwaalforces presented, I translated it and it seems to be the appointment to the post of "professor", this is however *not* what NPROF#2 is intended - these are major awards from academic societies or general awards like Fields Medals, Nobel prizes etc. One could argue that this may fulfill NPROF#5 since this is an appointment that (probably) not all professors get and is thus equivalent to a distinguished professorship at a US university and he thus he passes the "average professor test" since he is elevated beyond the "average professor". To me that is the strongest argument of all the ones I evaluated. However, I dont know enough about the academic structure in the country but I dont see enough evidence that this is indeed such an unusual occurrence to grant notability *on its own* in the presence of a weak citation record. In totality, both the content of the article and the additional arguments presented here have not convinced me that this a person that passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst criterion #2 didn't just mention awards, it says "award or honor", and FWIW, it clearly, by all means, and by all interpretation, passes #2. This is a country's highest and significant academic achievement we're talking about here, and the source that backs it up is a government ministry's site. What more do we need? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces There is some clarification in the section below that specifies "Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts" which I interpret as different from an official promotion. A named award or fellowship that is open to any researcher on a national level is different than what you describe which is more like a "distinguished promotion" within the ranks of academia that only some achieve. As I said, promotion to full professor more likely falls under NPROF#5 with "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution [...] or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. " which could be a fair argument to make but I dont see enough evidence for this (neither the "major institution" nor that this is equivalent to a distinguished professor at say Stanford/MIT/Yale ...). --hroest 13:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Comment. His article will remain on pl wiki, which considers habilitation sufficent for notability. I know en wiki does not. Interesting discrepancy, but that's wiki for you. I cannot find any other reasons to argue for keeping him, under en wiki rules (the claim that his book is an "important contributions" is cited to a routine government document justifying his promotion to the rank of professor and is in fact FAKE, since that document does not provide any justification - that falsificaiton of content made me withdraw my keep vote, since it is dishonest), although he does have the next "higher" level of academic degree (above) habilitaiton, i.e. the professor (as noted by Vanderwaalforces). Frankly, I'd support traeting that level as granting notability, but that's seems to be a dissenting view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus is it fake? Ah. Please point me or rather direct me to where you made the conclusion from? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces "are important contributions" is footnoted to [1]; that's just gov't document stating he (and some other folks) got the title of professor, but it contains no justification. That's sloppy writing at best, and in practice, improper use of sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I'm sorry to be asking too much questions, lol, but I need to be clearer; What do you mean by it contains no justification though?

FWIW, I think that if the highest academic "honor" (and not "award" in this case) is the President granting them the title of Professor, then that clearly satisfies criterion #2 from my viewpoint. I just feel most times, we're not consistent with our interpretation of notability guidelines and this might be increasing the systemic bias some of us are trying to reduce. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces No need to be sorry. What I mean is that it's a simple document (which you can open and translate with your phone or Google Translate or ChatGPT or such), and it simply states that such and such person received the professor title. It does not say what for, so the use of this document as a reference for the claim that he made "important contributions", is, IMHO, improper. Now, we can use common sense and deduce that only scholars with important contributions would receive such a title, but that's is meaningless WP:PEACOCK. For me, it's one thing to say that "according to reliable source X, his contributions have been called important", and another to use flowery, promotional languages. Since I am quite annoyed at the latter, I did change my weak keep to abstain, in hope that it will teach the creator to be more neutral (if they apologized and rewrote it, I may reconsider, but it does not seem that they are active enough, or care enough about this article, to comment here, so, sigh). As for your interpretation of #2, I weakly agree with you, hence my weak keep. I hope I explained why I changed to abstain (I really dislike promotion and poor/fake sourcing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 24 May 2025 (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.