Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rabilizirov


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Rabilizirov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable per WP:PROF. Might be a vanity page (created by an SPA). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Based on this Google scholar search, the subject has an h-index of 6 (but that could be artificially low due to different romanizations of the name).  I don't think being a fellow of the Russian Academy of Sciences in itself is enough to confer a pass under WP:PROF, but I could easily see how it could (but then I would expect that there would be other evidence of notability, such as high GS cites).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. What the article touts as his signature achievement (the recognition of fullerenes in interstellar dust) has too few citations to be noteworthy, and his claim to be "the first" is dubious (his paper was published in 1986; Ivars Peterson was already publicizing the role of fullerenes in interstellar dust in Science News in 1985). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoS shows 5 papers, around 40 total citations with h-index 3 (assuming no issues with surname). The assertion David mentioned is certainly a claim of notability, but the citation is his own paper. Agricola44 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete per above. Could not find much in cyrillic either. The low impact is compounded by low production, with papers going back to the 1980s.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2013 (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.