Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizami Akbarov

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami Akbarov[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of sources to establish notability, may have been written for promotion. -- Beland (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in GS : no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: GScholar is usually hit or miss when it comes to non-western academics. He has a ton of publications, so it'd be surprising if he didn't meet WP:NPROF#C1, but I am unable to find a definitive number of citations. Curbon7 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GS is often accurate for Russian scientists in a mainstream field such as this. A "Ton of publications" does not help with WP:Prof, only citations count, and there are not many to be found. Even if the BLP is kept, the exorbitant list of publications will have to be removed as unsuitable. I think that this BLP is an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just noting that having a considerable number of publications means he has to have at least some cites; that's not equating that with NPROF (hence why I didn't blindly !vote keep, there obviously needs to be proof), it's establishing typical causation/correlation. Curbon7 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that causation/correlation exists here it is up to you to produce the evidence to prove it. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I am not yet !voting one way or the other, just figuring out the hypothetical plausibility. Please don't be so argumentative. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regardless of the outcome, this is some serious NOTCV that needs heavy reduction. Publishing tons of papers isn't unusual in this field so the number of publications isn't indicative of impact. I found very little on Scopus -- only about 25 citations total across several profiles (with various spellings, including "Akberov", "Akperov", "Akrepov"). JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious promotion or self-promotion - based on the content, the tone, the "sourcing" and the accounts who created this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After reviewing for several days, I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Surprising lack of citations and no other WP:NPROF criteria. Chemistry is generally a high-citation field, so the limited set on Scopus does not bode confidence. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2022 (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.