- 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. ✗ plicit 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Jerry G. Chmielewski
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jerry G. Chmielewski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject seems to have written a lot of works, but I couldn't find any coverage about him. The citation rate could be the reason to keep the article, but all of the works with high rates are co-authored. For now he fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Peter coxhead and
Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —
Eewilson (
talk)
14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a
search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds logical, then. I'll save the text of the article off in case he gets notable, but I have no objection to deletion. — Eewilson ( talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a
search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Peter coxhead and
Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —
Eewilson (
talk)
14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If he had done a monograph on a genus tat would make him notable. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC).
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof, see MA profile and given his age (Phd almost 40 years ago) I doubt this is a case of TOOSOON. I am not a botanist but it seems he mainly described subspecies. -- hroest 18:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone can contribute in a perfectly solid way without passing WP:PROF (which, at least in part, is not about how much they have written but in how much has been written by others about them). If there are a bunch of biographical sources (or awards, etc, as shown in WP:PROF), speak up, but based on what's in the article and what I could find with a little searching, there don't appear to be. Question: if we delete the article should we unlinkify his name at List of botanists by author abbreviation (C), Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (two places where the abbreviation Chmiel. is linked), and any other such mentions (although those two were the only ones I noticed in "what links here"). It seems odd to have a redlink which invites re-creating an article which, unless people have new sources or something changes, wouldn't be kept. Kingdon ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Probably Delete. (Article creator here.) I did the Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. Seems he's done a bit with chromosome counts that I hadn't seen. As has been said, I don't see major works, but a few important papers with John C. Semple. He is not an author of FNA, has not authored a monograph on a genus, etc. But I wonder if keeping the article and elaborating (I did it in a bit of a rush to — yes — get it started and get rid of the red link) on the work he has done would flesh out the notability question. @ Kingdon: makes a good point. He is redlinked in a few places, but doesn't have to be. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on Jerry G. Chmielewski, and I'm not married to it one way or the other, but anyone who wishes to, have a quick look again. I'm too tired and my eyes can't focus/brain can't think to write more on him at this time or to again try to find more about him besides on ResearchGate, but maybe tomorrow. — Eewilson ( talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ✗ plicit 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Jerry G. Chmielewski
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jerry G. Chmielewski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject seems to have written a lot of works, but I couldn't find any coverage about him. The citation rate could be the reason to keep the article, but all of the works with high rates are co-authored. For now he fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Peter coxhead and
Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —
Eewilson (
talk)
14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a
search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds logical, then. I'll save the text of the article off in case he gets notable, but I have no objection to deletion. — Eewilson ( talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eewilson: the only issue concerning botanists is sometimes that they have authored a lot of names in only a few publications (e.g. a monograph) so can be considered notable on this account. However, a
search of IPNI for "Chmiel." (note that "Chmiel" without the "." is a different person) yields only 11 names, all at an infraspecific rank, so he's not notable on this account.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Peter coxhead and
Casliber: Is there an exception of some sort related to botanists? —
Eewilson (
talk)
14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If he had done a monograph on a genus tat would make him notable. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC).
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof, see MA profile and given his age (Phd almost 40 years ago) I doubt this is a case of TOOSOON. I am not a botanist but it seems he mainly described subspecies. -- hroest 18:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone can contribute in a perfectly solid way without passing WP:PROF (which, at least in part, is not about how much they have written but in how much has been written by others about them). If there are a bunch of biographical sources (or awards, etc, as shown in WP:PROF), speak up, but based on what's in the article and what I could find with a little searching, there don't appear to be. Question: if we delete the article should we unlinkify his name at List of botanists by author abbreviation (C), Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (two places where the abbreviation Chmiel. is linked), and any other such mentions (although those two were the only ones I noticed in "what links here"). It seems odd to have a redlink which invites re-creating an article which, unless people have new sources or something changes, wouldn't be kept. Kingdon ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Probably Delete. (Article creator here.) I did the Google Scholar and JSTOR searches. Seems he's done a bit with chromosome counts that I hadn't seen. As has been said, I don't see major works, but a few important papers with John C. Semple. He is not an author of FNA, has not authored a monograph on a genus, etc. But I wonder if keeping the article and elaborating (I did it in a bit of a rush to — yes — get it started and get rid of the red link) on the work he has done would flesh out the notability question. @ Kingdon: makes a good point. He is redlinked in a few places, but doesn't have to be. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on Jerry G. Chmielewski, and I'm not married to it one way or the other, but anyone who wishes to, have a quick look again. I'm too tired and my eyes can't focus/brain can't think to write more on him at this time or to again try to find more about him besides on ResearchGate, but maybe tomorrow. — Eewilson ( talk) 13:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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.