Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balázs Kovács (professor)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Kovács (professor)[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)

Not notable, coverage does not meet the thresholds of WP:GNG, nor are any of the criteria at WP:NPROF fulfilled. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professors at Ivy League universities should pass WP:PROF#C1, and I think he has enough citations [1]. Weak because his citation record and one book appear to be the only claims to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per that guideline, research impact needs to be demonstrated through independent reliable sources, and that's not the case here. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Research impact under WP:PROF#C1 is almost always demonstrated through high citation counts. If you read otherwise somewhere, then what you read differs from standard practice. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per David Eppstein, in this case the independent source is Google Scholar or any other third party citation service. What wont work is a self published statement of an academic about how important they are. --hroest 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Hungary, Netherlands, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The citation profile looks solid (nine papers in the triple-digit range, for example), but there doesn't seem to be much else to go on. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 papers with 100+ citations each is strong enough to pass NPROF#1, as demonstrated per GS. --hroest 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein is correct. Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1 per David Eppstein. Sndek (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (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.