Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Zelmanov

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 Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Zelmanov

Nonnotable physicist. The article's purpose appears to be to prop up the fringe science journal Progress in Physics. TheMile (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry, the gentlemen is extremely notable in his field ,as verified here [1] at Google Scholar.Shoessss | Chat 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Your link supports my point - most of those papers are from Progress in Physics (at ptep-online.com). -TheMile (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are right, 10 of the 13 are part of the Progress in Physics library. However, there are three other sources listed. In addition, I noticed quite a few additional sources in Google general search criteria. But no, I did not go through the whole list and verify. I admit I am an inclutionist, yes a made-up word, but one of the areas that I believe we should give a little leeway is for the time period between the late 1930’s through the middle 1950’s when a number of people made very large notable contributions to the area of physics, but where either forbidden to discuss or where completely over shadowed by the Einstein’s of the time. Thanks for listening. Shoessss | Chat 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6 of the papers listed are from Doklady AN USSR,. the Russian equivalent to PNAS.DGG (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I looked at Web of Science, which has 9 articles, from Doklady & another good Russian journal. . The most cited one of them, considerably to my surprise, had 81 citations. mostly from Russian journals, but including Phys Rev. I think he just might be marginally notable. DGG (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Doklady AN USSR are hardly an equivalent to PNAS. The citation index is pretty low, but he published in mostly Russian journals and long time ago, so having such citation is actually good.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 19 January 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.