Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gordeziani


 * 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) 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

David Gordeziani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searches did not turn up anything to show he passes WP:GNG, the article is virtually unreferenced, and his anemic citation count does not show how he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Apparently it was a draft which was simply moved into mainspace. The history has disappeared, so not sure if it went through AfC.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. No RS, h-index of 3, etc. It's pretty much as nom stated. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How are you computing the h-index? When I search Google Scholar for author:d-gordeziani I get h=17. Which is still not high, but mathematics is a low-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the GS link in the AfD header above. It gives citation counts of: 43, 41, 6, 3, 3,... Sounds like we're looking at 2 different lists. I agree that, for mathematics, 17 is a new ball game. Is there a link you could paste here? Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The GS link only finds papers with the author name exactly "David Gordeziani" and he appears to have published many of his works as "D. Gordeziani" or "D. G. Gordeziani" or "Д. Г. Гордезиани" or... See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Ad-gordeziani for a search that finds all the Latin-alphabet variants and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3AД-Гордезиани for the Cyrillic ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll leave my "delete" stand, based on what you've described below. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. In terms of notability, this may in fact pass WP:PROF. (Here is a link to the Scholar search that Agricola is asking for above.) However, I believe that the article in its current form is unsalvageable. It is essentially a promotional piece, and all of the information given is unreferenced and fails WP:V.  I did a bit of google searching, both in Russian and in English, but did not find anything substantive, except for the subject's CV. I don't see how this article can be improved to a reasonable state unless somebody is willing to completely rewrite it from scratch and to produce a stub that would still have to be entirely sourced to the subject's CV and his own publications. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Since a pass of WP:PROF by way of "decently high citations for a low-cited field" has been suggested as a possibility, I went ahead and stubified the article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was a WP:TNT case but XOR'easter fixed that. And I was about to !vote a weak delete (on the basis that borderline citation counts and no sources with in-depth detail about the subject don't provide us enough content for an actual article) but then I found his curriculum vitae where it says that he was president of the "Georgian Academy of Natural Sciences". Then I was about to !vote keep on the basis of WP:PROF until with a little more digging I realized that this was not a proper major national academy, but what appears to be a made-up title for a made-up organization . All the other impressive looking titles on the cv led to similarly sketchy results when I ran searches for them. So I think that this casts enough doubt on the cv that it cannot be taken a a factual and reliable source. And without even that, what content do we have? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2018 (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.