Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Pershin


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sergey Pershin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Successful person, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. While he seems to be above average in some parameters among Russian scientists in his field, it's not clear that his contributions to the field as a whole are notable. I am not sure how we handle "locally-above-average" when it comes to scholarly impact; I would be disinclined to keep despite his comparative advantage against his coauthors since I feel this would be equivalent to considering only a very narrow subfield. However, I'm not that confident in my perception of what the field-at-large averages are so input from someone adjacent to it would be welcome (?).

N = all 127 coauthors with ≥20 papers. Total citations: average: 1667, med: 437, Pershin: 1517. Total papers: avg: 110, med: 69, P: 252. h-index: avg: 15, med: 11, P: 17. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 196, med: 54, P: 219. 2nd: avg: 116, med: 41, P: 81. 3rd: avg: 73, med: 31, P: 35. 4th: avg: 60, med: 26, P: 30. 5th: avg: 52, med: 24, P: 28. JoelleJay (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * delete I dont see a  reason to  treat scientists within a purely local context, a scientific contribution is equally important no matter who and where in the  world it is made. Also  looking at his MA profile I do see many publications but few with a strong impact as per analysis above (already the 5th paper has  28 citations only and a total  of 220 papers are listed for the subject but  an h-index of 17 speaks to a  lower  number of quality papers). I cannot see the argument here for WP:NPROF#1. Even the most cited paper Colao et al on double pulse  LIBS is included as a listing in a review of LIBS as a  key paper but not singled out, so probably not truly a landmark paper: "Fortunately, several very informative reviews and key papers have been written by leading groups in this field [double pulse LIBS], in addition to a few modeling papers (see, for example, Babushok et al., 22 Noll et al., 307 Scaffidi et al., 325 Mao et al., 317 Colao et al., 301 Corsi et al., 306 Piñon and Anglos, 335 De Giacomo et al., 26,333 Bogaerts et al., 165 and Rai et al. 167 )". --hroest 11:43, 31 August 2021 (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.