Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Wizardman 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for notability since April. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Undecided for the moment. GoogleScholar results for them (apparently they write all of their papers together) are respectable, but nothing out of the ordinary. Top citation hit is 46, h-index of around 11. For an active experimental field like neuroscience that actually seems a little thin. Nothing in GoogleBooks. I looked up their CV. No significant awards or honors beyond the grad student level listed there. On the other hand, the fact that they actually bother to list "honors" from vanity press publications, such as Who is Who and International Biographical Centre, actually worries me. Usually academics do not list such stuff on their CVs as it is considered somewhat embarrassing. So I am not sure for the moment if there is enough here to pass WP:PROF (hopefully somebody more familiar with the field will comment) but am leaning towards delete. Nsk92 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete per Crusio's comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The citation data given by Nsk92 are meager (especially considering this concerns collapsed data for 2 persons). The article contains some claims that look impressive, but are not (all academics serve as referees for scientific journals from time to time, even my grad student is sometimes asked). They may become notable in time, but WP is not a crystal ball. As an aside, I get mailings from the IBC all the time (throw them in the wastebasket without opening), but always thought that the Marquis Who's Who is more reputable (as per the WP article), so I actually list those in my CV myself.... :-) Given that these guys are listed too, perhaps I should remove them... --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (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.