Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Belyanin


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexey Belyanin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:PROF. The article itself is somewhat of a substub. It could very well be notable, but I can't find any indication so. (count this nom as a neutral !vote.) TimothyRias (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep , weakish. It's not my field, but it appears he has helped create a new kind of laser, and it has got some attention in the news.  Using GS, I get an h-index of at least 10.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't think he meets WP:PROF: Web of Science gives top citations 54, 49, 48, 30, 23… and an h-index of 14, which seems respectable for an experimental semiconductor physicist who got his PhD 14 years ago, but nothing exceptional. He's currently an associate prof with a research group of 5, only one of whom appears to be a postdoc. I can't see that the Raman injection laser has generated any real attention in the news according to Google News Archive, just 4 websites that have reprinted the same press release. Google News archive search for his name gives a few mentions, but no significant coverage, so no sign he meets WP:BIO either. Qwfp (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Respectable cites in high class journals. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * weak keep over 80 papers, many in the most important journals (5 in PRL, 1 in Nature, etc.) Raw analysis of numbers of cites tends to obscure things like that. I think he's over the bar. (btw, weak keep/weak delete as !votes seem to be going out of fashion--I use it to mean, "I think keep | delete, but I won't argue if you think otherwise"         DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He was cited only 138 208 times including self-citation, often in abstracts of proceedings. There are no good publications about him, beyond publications in University web sites.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain where you get the figure of 138 from. Qwfp gets more than 204 from the authoritative WoS. There is no need for publications about "him" to attain WP:Prof #1. Citations to his work are what is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Sorry, this is actually 208. This is from Institute for Scientific Information, a standard tool for evaluating Impact factor. Is it a lot? Not at all in natural sciences. One of undegraduate students I worked with has 100+ citations. A typical professor in our department has several thousand citations (only citations rather than number of publications important). In the lack of several independent 3rd party publications about him as a notable person, I am afraid this is delete. WP:Prof #1 tells "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". But this is precisely not the case here.Biophys (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are certainly independent and reliable, but I agree that this falls into the borderline region. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete per Biophys - citations fall below WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (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.