Deletion of Juliusz Brzezinski

Comment: per solid cases above.  He's in a lower-citation subfield of a low-citation field, but citations are still too light.  Comment that "emeritus" usually means slightly more than just retired, more like "respected retired".  (But it certainly doesn't contribute to meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Mathematics is a low-citation field, but even so we need evidence of impact to give notability through #C1. His Google Scholar profile https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E6jb_t4AAAAJ appears to mix his citations with a similarly-named chemist but with or without the chemistry it's not really highly enough cited to convince. He certainly does not meet #C6, which is reserved for the heads of entire universities. He has a new textbook "Galois Theory Through Exercises" with one review on MAA https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/galois-theory-through-exercises and one non-review (just a copy-and-past of the publisher blurb) on Mathematical Reviews; that's not enough for . As Piotrus already stated, "emeritus" is usually just a fancy way of writing "retired". So he seems to be the epitome of an average full professor, one who does not stand out in the way that our academic notability criteria seek
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)