Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomasz Kamusella

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. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 14:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Kamusella

[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)

The article was created and heavily edited by the subject themselves. Much of the language reads like puffery and I am unsure just how well-sourced it is (as I am not sure some of it is even actually about him). Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... but all looks sourced. Let’s take a closer look at it. I’ll be back with my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the few I checked none seem to be reviews, they are all link to the books (or publishers) site or other book selling sites, as I said above there seems to be a degree of classic cite spam going on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  There are several reviews of one book listed in a WP:PROMO fashion at the end of the "Academic career" section. I'll go to move them to the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the book might be notable?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, At least one (I name below) clearly is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep he has multiple scholarly reviews for his books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] which are enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR and his GS shows hundreds of citations which make him pass the bar for WP:NPROF. The article may need an overhaul especially with the list of books being half of it but should not be deleted. --hroest 14:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after a closer look, I equal with the nominator’ judgments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple published reviews identified by hroest. I find this argument more convincing than the NPROF argument also made by hroest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a major overhaul and is the puffiest of puff's, and really should be re-written by someone other than the subject of the article. Oy, why am I not surprised. Anyway, I am of the view that he fails at WP:PROF but does pass by WP:AUTHOR per others research, and therefore should be kept. Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At least one of his books (The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe) is clearly notable (several academic reviews). He would be kept on pl wiki which is more inclusive for European academics (due to treating habilitation as sufficient). He is probably notable. That said, as COI was already mentioned, I'll point to User_talk:Hyrdlak#Tomasz_Kamusella (it seems that the article was started by the subject themselves, and even edited quite recently). Some COI tags may be necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR here, with at least three books that are reviewed, one significantly. (The reviews for two are in the article, there is also this review [8] ). The WP:NAUTHOR case is not so strong as I expected, but I think it's enough to not WP:TNT the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2021 (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.