Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Skowron

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. Edges into Keep territory, despite COI suspicions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Skowron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Other than the concern of COI, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. No special achievement other than a regular academic in the domain of Computer Science. The only point worth considering while judging WP:NPROF parameters is the Citation index in G scholar. Though it is not low, but in a domain like AI, since major works are going on massively, citation count should be scrutinized with extra care. Chirota (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NPROF the criterion 2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." of notability is satisfied. The academic won the academic award, IJCAI Computer and Thought Award, which is considered to be "the premier award for artificial intelligence researchers under the age of 35". Regarding COI, the page contains only facts and no subjective judgments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motzarcik (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Motzarcik is the creator of this article, and has very few edits outside this biography and a theory that Piotr Skowron co-published about, see Method of Equal Shares[reply]

• Weak keep. He meets Polish Wikipedia's equivalent of NPROF due to having a habilitation - but there is no consensus on en wiki that's sufficient. GScholar shows he is a co-author of several papers that got 100-200+ cites, but he is only one of several co-authors, not a sole author. But we have an article on IJCAI Computers and Thought Award which he won, and that counts for something here, something being NPROF#2. I am unclear why the nom does not consider that reward significant? PS. On the other hand, his Method of Equal Shares does not seem notable, it was just AfDed at pl wiki and I'll do so here shortly. PPS. Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Method of Equal Shares.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is the English Wikipedia and we apply English Wikipedia inclusion rules, of which he meets none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • why none? could you refer to WP:NPROF#2 criterion and IJCAI Computers and Thought Award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:18A3:D146:383B:1D1:DB6C:F1B4 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's still a bit early in his career but with four triple-digit citation count papers on Google Scholar (soon to be five) I think he already has a case for WP:PROF#C1. And the awards are probably too early-career to be enough by themselves, but they're not by themselves — they have the citation record to back them up. Also, really the proper comparison for the citation counts is computational social choice theory, not AI as a whole, which can have massive citation counts but more in other subareas than this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while this might barely squeak by on NPROF, the fact that this is COI/UPE editing puts it in the bin for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have evidence of this "fact", I assume, since that is a serious accusation to make against the good faith of an editor? Evidence clear enough to state definitively which one of COI or UPE you mean? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild keep Just barely at the notability bar with the award and the citation index numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF criteria 1 and 2. Lkb335 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2022 (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.