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 no consensus. There a good arguments from each side, but no definitive consensus either way. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kalinski[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist. A mere 37 citations of his most-cited paper doesn't cut the mustard in physics. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Matt might be also and perhaps be better known as Maciej.(Msrasnw (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Comment: this edit introduced a swatch of URLs which all appear to be largely re-publishings of this press release. As a press release these are not independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable sources. Science Daily is not just a press release pass-through, they are a reliable source, articles printed there (presumably) have been edited internally (as it says at the end of the article) ie. someone from Science Daily has looked at and vetted the article. This gives it reliability and notability independent of the source. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a GS h-index of 13 for "M Kalinski" fails WP:Prof#C1. Too early Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It appears that the name of this article is supposed to be "Maciej Kalinski", not "Matt Kalinski". For example , he is the author of the PhD thesis (here) in the "External links" section of the article. There might some biographies of "Maciej" at a University or technical institution. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I am not saying this person is notable or not at the moment. However, I wish to point out that seven articles on this first page [1] are related to "Trojan Wave Packets":

Lagrange equilibrium points in celestial mechanics and nonspreading wave packets for strongly driven Rydberg electrons
Trojan wave packets: Mathieu theory and generation from circular states
Numerical observation of stable field-supported Rydberg wave packets
Nonspreading Rydberg wave packets supported by a linearly polarized electromagnetic field
Bialynicki-Birula, Kalinski, and Eberly reply
Quantum control of non-circular Trojan states in hydrogen
Non-circular Trojan-like wavepackets: quantum theory and application to quantum control

There might be more on the Google Scholar pages that follow. Also, please take a look at the H-index for "Maciej Kalinski" rather than M. Kalinski and see if it comes out different than the above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you try it yourself you will find that it comes out smaller. He publishes as M Kalinski. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK thanks. Oh by the way it seems that User:Msrasnw has discovered that this person also goes by the name of Matt. See discussion on my tslk page here (if anyone is interested). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theo polisme 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep notable in science is measured by the importance of the discovery, for which the citations are only a very approximate measure. There is no sharp cutoff. I accept Science Daily coverage as an indication the public might well come here for information, and that is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is now a Polish language wikipedia article for the subject, but it doesn't appear to contain reliable sources we can steal to confirm notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Polish version has been deleted for lack of notability [2] (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Not enought reliable source material from which to create a Wikipedia biographical article per WP:GNG. The only Matt Kalinski who might meets WP:GNG is Florida State University cross country runner Matt Kalinski. I looked for Kalinski and Trojan and also looked for Kalinski and wave packet and looked for maciej and kalinski. I only found this, which notes in a footnote #9, "M. Kalinski, J. H. Eberly, J. A. West, C. R. Stroud, Jr., Phys. Rev. A. 67, 032503 (2003)." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." I don't give a good goddamn if the press release is published in the Wall Street Journal in 24-pt type, it's still a press release, and it's still debarred as a reliable source for the purposes of the GNG. Ravenswing 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science Daily: "The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Rice University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. -- why is Science Daily making original edits to the content? They are interjecting their own editorial control over the content. Is that a press release? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which publication doesn't exercise editorial control over its content, press release or no? Ravenswing 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ones that just merely re-print press releases word for word usually say at the top of the article "Press release from.." To reverse the question: what publication doesn't sometimes rely on press releases when writing their own original content? Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll find that they generally don't say so; far more often than otherwise, we determine at AfD that a source is a press release by way of comparison with multiple sources, all using nearly-identical wording and phrasings, and using a particular promotional tone that's easy to spot. Ravenswing 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good method. Has it been done? Green Cardamom (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2012 (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.