Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Okhotin


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Okhotin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Refs consist mostly of primary sources written by the subject himself or that do not discuss the subject in anything more than trivial details. No substantive coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to be found. Being a full professor does not qualify the subject under WP:ACADEMIC without holding a named chair. KDS4444 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. He seems to have carved out a niche for himself in certain problems involving the expressive power of different sets of operations, allowing him to write many papers that are superficially indistinguishable but actually have tiny differences in exactly which operations are allowed and not allowed or in whether the operands are described as, say, integers vs unary strings (compare, for instance, the nearly-simultaneously-published journal papers, with different co-authors, and ). This has given him enough publications for a successful academic career but his impact has been too limited (too low citation count) to pass WP:PROF. And when one looks more carefully at the actual citations of some of his better-cited papers (e.g., a 2010 paper listed as having 56 citations by Google Scholar) one sees self-citation after self-citation, with only single-digit citations from others, so the case looks even weaker. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eppstein's analysis of citations. I would have been fooled if it weren't for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 31 March 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.