Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Gaina

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Gaina

Alexei Gaina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 4 Ghits --
  Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being autobiography doesn't automatically kill it but it is insufficiently referenced to demonstrate sufficient notability and that does. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regarding COI, the fact that this is an auto-biography is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete the article, but it is a reason to scrutinize the article very closely. Regarding ghits, I would note that he apparently writes his name as Alex rather than Alexei in his publications, so googling should be done for "Alex Gaina". That being said, the data available does not establish notability per
  WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Web of science, gives 17 papers. (they are under Gaina AB). The peculiar thing , as has been noted, is that the most cited of them has been cited only 7 times --and that's for all the time since the 1980s. (and the two most cited are coauthored with his advisor). They are all in Russian journals, though, and WoS notoriously undercounts citations to these, because many of the citations come from the Russian journals it does not cover. But that might be a factor of 2 or so, and, even so, ADS should have picked them up. Even odder, they are in a very active field--black hole physics. The key is to look at the author address: he is in a provincial university, in Moldavia. I do not understand the subject well enough to be able to tell from reading the papers why his colleagues world-wide think the work less than significant, but so it is. DGG (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (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.