Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Eryomin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PROF. There is not a serious attempt by any of the sources to provide a biography of this rather obscure academic. Third-party citations, in particular, all seem to be either within a walled-garden of believers in noospheres or are one-off mentions. This looks like WP:SOAP as well. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: See related Articles for deletion/Noogenesis as well as the previous AfD Articles for deletion/Noometry. jps (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom. The claim to notability is that he invented something non-notable. That's absolutely no good. So, in addition to the reasons already given, we should probably also delete it out of kindness as it just makes him look bad. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citation counts are too weak to support a pass of WP:PROF, and we have no other case for notability. In addition, as his work seems to be at least somewhat fringe in nature, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE demand adequate mainstream coverage of it to provide a properly neutral description of his contributions, and we don't have those. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have said. I don't see any real grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weak sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "... work by fellow scientist Alexei Eryomin, noos-related concepts have grown in stature more than has been recognized..." Rondfeldt D., Arquilla J. (2020) Whose Story Wins: The Noösphere, Noöpolitik, and the Future of Statecraft. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. p.18, 99 pp.(ISBN 978-1-9774-0530-2) ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2021 (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.