Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Zonenko


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sergey Zonenko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication that the subject passes WP:PROF. The paper the article describes as worthy of a Nobel prize (without a reference) received only 9 citations. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello. Why article Sergey Zonenko seen at "being considered for deletion"? Whay we can fix that article was not removed? Ogeldke (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article makes a lot of claims of notability which aren't supported by the references given. Can you find references from WP:Reliable sources, in any language, to support the claim that he's discovered a new law of physics, worthy of a Nobel prize? Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The adequacy of such a source would also need to be considered very carefully. The subject's main claim to notability is this alleged discovery of a new law of physics.  If that is indeed the case, it should be readily supportable by a rather large number of sources.  Exceptional claims like this generally require exceptional sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient citations (h-index of only 4) and nothing suggesting notability found on searching (either for his English or Russian name). -- 120.23.169.108 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I think some issues are related to poor English. From what I read the claim is not actually "a new law of physics" so much as a new solution to a specific hydrodynamic problem, modeling the explosive collapse of of thin liners in shaped charges. If his solution is notable it should be discussed somewhere because turbulent instabilities in liners/lenses is a pretty big deal in high precision explosive compression. Based on what information is provided he does not meet WP:NACADEMICS. Right now I can find no sources that discuss/validate his work or demonstrate its contribution to the state of the art. If it is as important as the article claims he should at some time be elected to the Russian Academy of Science (where much of his work seems to be published) and then would qualify for an article. JBH (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the basis of what's in the article. I should probably point out, however, that I removed an unreferenced claim that he was chased out of the country for political reasons. That could explain why he wasn't elected to the Russian Academy, but that too is unfortunately WP:OR or WP:Synthesis until we get some sources to verify. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. User:Ogeldke removed the AfD notice from this article. I restored it and warned the user not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User removed the AfD notice again today. I restored it and warned him again, and asked him to post his rationale against deletion here instead. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article seems to be centered on promoting a 10-year-old physics theory with very little impact. So as well as its ostensible subject not appearing to pass WP:PROF, there are WP:COATRACK issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I ask you not to remove the article because I have deleted all objectionable messages.Ogeldke (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, and per Jbhunley and David Eppstein. Wikipedia is not an advocacy website for promoting the causes of unrecognised scientists. If his work is notable, it needs references to support the claims to notability, and so far, the article's creator can provide none, despite an evident close connection to the subject. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete For reasons stated above. Dilaton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (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.