Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Balabin


 * 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 Draftify. Given that the subject appears to meet WP:PROF, draftifying is probably the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Roman Balabin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failing WP:GNG and WP:PROF. A researcher who publishes. Run-of-the-mill. Essentially a very bloated WP:AUTOBIO that summarises their published papers. WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Inappropriate autobiography. Mr. Balabin, a domain name isn't very expensive to put your CV on. Reywas92Talk 19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Draftify: Aside from the obvious WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues, the subject's academic publications seem to have stopped following his doctorate in 2013. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep : WP:PROF. There is no such thing as a "run-of-the-mill" academic with h-index of 34 (Mendeley). Almost 300 citations in 2018. --FIFAukr (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment We appreciate your contribution, given your account was only created today. However, perhaps you missed this caution on WP:PROF: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. Thus, h-index numbers are not enough to establish notability when other evidence is absent. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you have been blocked as a "vandalism only account". Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify Notable, but totally unsuited for mainspace. The articles is extraordinarily non-encyclopedic to the extent that it almost represents a promotional tribute to him. It needs major work, beyond what what can be done here, but if it is kept in mainspace, I will do it there. Notability can be judged by citation, but not by any over simplistic method of just looking at  h-index. h=34 can mean 34 papers each with 34 citations, which in most experimental sciences indicates no really significant work, or ,as here, with papers cited 280, 226, 217, 104, 177. ... which indicates a number of papers with very influential work--there are actualy 14 papers with over 100 citations each. .., would you care to comment of this point? Nor do I see how this record could be considered "run of the mill", as the nom proposes.   DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I changed my vote above, assuming he must have published with the Zenobi group since his doctorate in 20113, but his publications alone may not be enough for WP:PROF. Removing this autobio would be a good start, so I'd be happy if you are willing to give it a go. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to figure this out, but it may take some analysis. The article even in its present form admits he took an unusually longtime to the doctorate. Does this mean he remained an apprentice, and hisadvisor made use of his work for many joint papers, or that he worked on many important projects of his own even before he actually belatedly finished? I've known example of each pattern. Sometimes it is only those who actualy know the parties who can figure out the true contributions, but sometimes it can be figured out from the papers or even the metadata.  DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Delete. This looks like someone's CV placed to WP space for a purpose of promotion. I do not see any publications about this person. What exactly significant did he accomplish? This is not clear at all after reading the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2019 (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.