Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Rychlik

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

Marek Rychlik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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]

  • Comment. The article may well have been started out of self-promotional intent. Yet, while the reason we discourage
    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
    ]
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
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
]
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
]
And what makes you think this is a good idea? In fact,
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
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
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
    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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marek_Rychlik&oldid=1072147108"