Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaroslav Blanter


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yaroslav Blanter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The first two references are broken; references #3,#4, #5 and #7 look like some kind of lists; reference #8 links to Wikipedia 67.169.11.79 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to clear the GNG bar. The bio of him on Russian Wikipedia claims he's written 100 scientific articles, so I'll be happy to stand down if it can be shown he clears the special guidelines for academics. Carrite (talk)


 * Standing down, per David Eppstein below. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is something odd about the citations. The article claims an ISI h-index of 22 (which would be a clear pass of WP:Prof). However on Google Scholar I can only find cites of 64, 28, 24, 24 and a few single digit hits, which is well below pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
 * How are you doing the search? When I search for author:y-blanter I get a top citation count of 1367 for "Shot noise in mesoscopic conductors", and a total of five publications over 100 citations each, well above pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks, I was clicking on the link at the top. Searching GS for Y M Blanter I find an h-index of 28, a clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment**:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In this article I see no multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Which criteria applies here? and why? --67.169.11.252 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Prof: see 2.5 cm above. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
 * I guess you're right, but the article should state something about h-index.--67.169.11.252 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't tend to mention that explicitly in our articles, for one thing because it's too subject to change. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article actually does mention his h-index (contrary to convention). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep. The high citation record shows a pass of WP:PROF and the Russian story concerning his Wikipedia activities adds some depth to what would otherwise be a bare cv. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe that imposing "over one thousand blocks and deleting thousands of pages" on Russian Wikipedia adds to the notability of this academic? --17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.11.252 (talk)
 * Of course not. What I believe is that being described as doing so in a reliably published mainstream magazine article adds to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blanter did give advise in the Moscow Times January 30, 2007 to not talk too loudly in Russia's churches. However, the topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2012 (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.