Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Doronin

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. czar 07:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Doronin

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

Non-notable person. The corresponding article in Russian Wikipedia was deleted in May 2009 per this discussion: ru:Википедия:К удалению/6 апреля 2009#Доронин, Сергей Иванович. XXN, 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing even stands out in the article in terms of WP:PROF, much less a decent Google search for sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, does not meet GNG or PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A GS h-index of 11 (for S I Doronin) is not enough to pass WP:Prof in the quite well-cited field of quantum information. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unsourced and promotional in tone. For instance, "Many scientists and science popularizers..." followed by shameless name-dropping. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too low citations on Google scholar, in a high-citation field, to pass WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the lack of notability, the bulk of the article and what little I can find about his work online is pseudoscientific nonsense, a concern that was also expressed in the ru-wiki AfD. – Joe (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2017 (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.