Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Rychlik

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Rychlik[edit]

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

This is an autobiography originally posted by User:Rychlik. The subject has a fairly unremarkable carreer (CV). Solving the equichordal point problem does not seem to be something that has generated much notice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article may well have been started out of self-promotional intent. Yet, while the reason we discourage autobiographies is because of the obvious danger of neutrality and notability, the current one-liner can hardly be described as promotional tone, and the OP clearly fulfills our notability guidelines on academics. For notability on his solution to the equichordal point problem, see for example this book including its introduction. (Nonrespective WP:OTHERCRAP, I have been overruled with a keep vote in AfD discussions where I voted delete for much less notable persons, so I don't quite see why we want this one to be deleted based on notability grounds.) Nageh (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I dispute the assertion that he "clearly fulfills our notability guidelines on academics", and in fact that is precisely what I am contesting with this AfD. Could you please be more specific about how he fulfills them? He doesn't seem to have won any significant awards, and his work on the equichordal point problem does not seem to have been broadly influential. The book you cite mentions the subject, but only in passing. We also have the demands of WP:V, that even if a subject is notable, it still needs to be addressed nontrivially by sources. Further, if he truly is notable only for this one accomplishment, then there is no hope of an independent article about the subject, and (per WP:1E) the correct thing to do is redirect to Equichordal point problem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:Academics: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

Whether you account the source I gave as indication for significant impact in the field of Plane Geometry may be subjective. At least, he solved one of their "unsolved problems".

I may have some preconception here, which is because I was overruled twice in my vote for deletion of Susan Scholz. But seriously, and non-respective of WP:OTHERCRAP, we need to be objective in our judgments. How can we keep an article on an associate professor but delete one on a full professor who delivered some notable theoretical result? Please help me understand our guidelines here. Nageh (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete MathSciNet citation counts are 57,19,14,13,10,6. Gscholar counts are 142,71,49,24,21,14,8,7,etc. The prizes listed in his CV do not seem terribly significant. I conclude that he fails to meet WP:PROF criterion 1 on the basis of citations (weak b/c his most-cited paper is very well cited), and do not see other grounds for notability. Solving problems is what mathematicians do - that he solved one makes him a respectable professional mathematician, but not necessarily more notable than your typical tenured professor. Ray^Talk 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rychlik's theorem Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think this is a good idea? In fact, Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer and blatant self-promotion. There is a single(!) Google hit that refers to the equichordal point problem by this name, the other hits refer to earlier results by Rychlik. And the total hits are so few that really Rychlik's theorem should be renamed to equichordal point problem and broadened in scope to discuss the general problem. This is not what this AfD is about, but shows that your suggested merge is not a good idea. Nageh (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of how little there is under Marek Rychlik and how much of that is purely related to Rychlik's theorem anyway. As there's no personal bio in there to speak of, I see it as reasonable to include it with the theorem. This would of course change if Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer, or doesn't exist.

As to a rename to equichordal point problem, that sounds reasonable too (seems a bit odd that it redirects to the theorem at present), but that wouldn't change my comments above. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge entails leaving a redirect from Marek Rychlik to Rychlik's theorem/equichordal point problem. Provided that Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer (which it is), is that what you intend? (Just asking.) Nageh (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marek Rychlik and rename Rychlik's theorem to equichordal point problem. Although I recently found a paper on ZBMATH database (Wojtkowski, M.P., Two applications of Jacobi fields to the billiard ball problem, J. Differ. Geom. 40, No.1, 155-164 (1994)) which mentions Bialy's theorem and also Rychlik's theorem in the abstract, however I don't believe that Rychlik's theorem is an appropriate (universal) labeling. DrPhosphorus (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (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.