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. Sandstein 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Rohozinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Have gone through all the references + have googled him can’t find thing that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG, the article is a CV, it has been mainly edited by numerous WP:SPA. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The wiki-notability case is not very good. For example, once you dig under the initially-decent-seeming numbers at Google Scholar, there are misclassifications that bring the figures down (e.g., somehow he gets credit for a review that someone else wrote of a book he co-edited). He was involved with multiple books that appear to have attracted moderately substantial numbers of citations, but as a co-editor, not an author. So, it's hard to argue for a pass of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF on those grounds. The LinkedIn-quality writing is a good reason either to cut nearly all the text or to blow up the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 December 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.