Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. I. Shlyakhter


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A. I. Shlyakhter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Found nothing about him in Google top results searching for Russian form of his name Шляхтер. XXN, 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ?. Two well-cited papers in Nature. Citation data not normally enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I found two book sources about the natural reactor discovery, including one by Freeman Dyson who writes quite effusively about Shlyakhter. I think his publication record on other topics (e.g. one of the Nature papers noted by Xxanthippe is on global warming, and he also has some reasonably well cited papers on risk analysis), while not really enough on its own for WP:PROF, is enough to save this article from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep thanks to later additions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Reasonably well cited, a single-author paper in Nature, and the natural reactor discovery does appear to be considered significant, which together passes WP:PROF. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the natural reaction discovery is mind blowing, and shows that he contributed a significant advance to his field. Also, others in this thread were able to discover other facets of his work that are worthy of note. Definitely worth keeping this bio. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've expanded the article a bit and added sources, including some on his later work on risk analysis, which appears to be quite notable in itself (two papers in nature, coverage in secondary sources and the press). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per article improvements; I believe notability has been established. Also suggest moving the article to Alexander Shlyakhter. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (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.