- 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 to delete, leaning more towards keeping than deleting, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 05:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Petr Dostál ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely fails WP:GNG no independent sources .both [1] [2] citations are from from the university site . Ratnahastin talk 07:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- weak delete independent sources are not the problem here, see
WP:NPROF and
his GS which is independent enough. However, the issue is that he likely fails
WP:NPROF with an h-index of 16 and 700 citations. Unless geography is a really low citation field, which it does not seem to be, then he would fail
WP:NPROF#1. --
hroest
21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you’re saying that independent sources are not the problem, you are actually saying he is meeting GNG. (?)
SportsOlympic (
talk)
07:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- SportsOlympic No, I am saying that since WP:NPROF applies, we do not require independent sources for the article. However, the person has to pass WP:NPROF first, I believe he is somewhat borderline. -- hroest 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you’re saying that independent sources are not the problem, you are actually saying he is meeting GNG. (?)
SportsOlympic (
talk)
07:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, per Hannes Röst, Geography, being one of the fundamental fields, have low citations in general, in comparison to technology related fields. Chirota ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- comment I would agree it is low, but not that low. Looking at some of the people in the field it seems that 700 is a low number of citations. -- hroest 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep meets wikipedia:NACADEMIC. SportsOlympic ( talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with hroest that citations are a bit short for WP:NPROF -- it's a low citation field, but we still need _something_. I believe that the subject is in a "book" field, and so might meet WP:NAUTHOR. Language issues might make finding the reviews that are generally needed for WP:NAUTHOR a bit tricky. I didn't see much helpful in the Czech wikipedia article on the subject. The existing stub is minimal enough that a soft delete could be a reasonable outcome here. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 08:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if reviews or similar can be found. There's nothing showing notability at this time; meanwhile, not much is lost by removing a 1 sentence stub.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
10:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- "There's nothing showing notability at this time" --> that is not a valid reason for deletion if the person does meet notability. "not much is lost by removing a 1 sentence stub" --> it's a bit more than that, If the article is deleted this way by stating he was not notable, it also states the article should not be created again.
SportsOlympic (
talk)
13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- So, I'm suggesting a soft delete, as per an expired prod or AfD with minimal participation. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- "There's nothing showing notability at this time" --> that is not a valid reason for deletion if the person does meet notability. "not much is lost by removing a 1 sentence stub" --> it's a bit more than that, If the article is deleted this way by stating he was not notable, it also states the article should not be created again.
SportsOlympic (
talk)
13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv 🍁 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv 🍁 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to pass
WP:NACADEMIC #5. Professor of Social Geography at the
Charles University according to his article on Czech Wikipedia, which is
much more comprehensive.
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
Such as most European countries. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Necrothesp, I believe Dostál’s distinguished position at Charles University meets notability requirements. Thriley ( talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (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.