- 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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Sergei Kruchinin
- Sergei Kruchinin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Scopus says h-index of 8, well below the threshold for WP:PROF. Editor of two journals that turn out to be predatory. WP:PEACOCK added by the WP:SPAs who are the main substantive contributors. However, Russian, so some of the issues with this awful article might be down to language difficulties. Guy ( Help!) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see a way to passing WP:PROF. GS citation counts for his listed publications: 0, 12, 15, 15, 18, 31, 14, 3, 30, 51, 14, 0, 2, 3. Even allowing for the irregularities of what GS sees and what it misses, there's no way this adds up to "influential". The 2010 textbook he coauthored has only 39 citations, and I can't find reviews of it. No evidence of awards or highly selective society fellowships that could indicate professional recognition. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. With the predatory editorships removed there is no evidence of WP:PROF. This article is puffed up in a particularly eastern-European way, but that's neither here nor there except that it makes any actual notability hard to find among all the noise. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete the start is overly promotional and full of unneeded padding. If there was substance this might be overcomeable, but he just does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:34, 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.