- 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. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Renad Zhdanov
- Renad Zhdanov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article and likely COI (author name is a close match to the subject, and author has no other contributions). Appears to fail WP:PROF. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 12. Article is bogged down with references to everything the subject ever write, including a number of suspect journals. Any assertion of notability is backed only by primary sources, most of which are under the control of the subject. Guy ( Help!) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete GS h-index of 20 for this highly cited field is too low to pass WP:Prof#1. I have removed the vastly bloated bibliography. If the article is kept there is more that could go. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
- Delete Nothing indicates this BLP passes WP:PROF or an "average professor". As always, the GS h-index is prone to overinflate citation counts, and the SCOPUS h-index of 12 is more realistic. This doesn't even pass the low bar of using citation count indices. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 25 November 2017 (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.