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. Randykitty ( talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Stanislav Shekshnia

Stanislav Shekshnia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

queried deletion Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Note: I have seriously considering speedily deleting this, and I will not disagree if another administrator does so. This is a content deleted at a previous discussion, re-created by Anthony Appleyard without any justification, and without even informing, let alone consulting, the administrator who closed that discussion Spartaz. The way to contest deletion at AfD is to first consult the closing administrator, and if that doesn't lead to agreement then take it to a deletion review, not to just unilaterally re-create the article without giving any explanation and then take it to a new AfD without giving any reason in the nomination. The only reason that I didn't perform the speedy deletion is that only two people took part in the earlier discussion, so there is a case for treating this in effect as a relisting in the hope of getting more participation. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The reasons given in the previous discussion still apply: there is no evidence of satisfying either the general notability guideline or the guideline for academics, or any other notability guideline. The subject of the article is a fairly ordinary academic and businessman, without any particular claim to notability. Only two of the edited sources give any significant coverage of him, and they are his profile pages on the web sites of two organisations he works for. Thus we have not a single independent source giving any significant coverage. Nor have I found any other suitable source anywhere. (Also, a significant part of the article is a copyright infringement. I shall remove and revision-delete that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The thing with the anomalously high citation count listed at the top of his Google scholar profile is not an academic publication (it looks like a brochure for a workshop) and is not primarily by him. Discounting that, no pass of WP:PROF is evident. And both the content and the out-of-process re-creation look promotional to me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. Crudely crafted cruft. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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.