Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Galkin

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Galkin[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article created by an user which probably is in Conflict of interest with the subject (see his userpage). XXN, 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Conflict of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.233.214.74 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be a notable scientist & author (Worldcat identies). Enough hits in Google books to suggest notability link. Member of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Here's the profile that they have published, which suggests a notable academic:

Vladimir Galkin: Academic-Secretary of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technologies. Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Professor. Director of A.M. Butlerov Chemical Institute at Kazan State University. Honored Worker of Science of the Republic of Tatarstan. link.

More sources are likely to exist in Russian / Tatar. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 11 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Academy of Tatarstan is not sufficiently prominent to pass WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.K.e.coffman correctly points out that we should check "Галкин, Владимир И." in Russian. Doing that search makes it clear that he exists and is well known but I can't determine his notability as an academic. Perhaps someone else might like to scrutinize the Russian results. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. we should never keep or delete based on h index alone; h=11 could mean 10 papers with 200 citations each and one with 11, or it could mean 11 papers with 11 citations each. The first is notable, the second not. Xxanthippe, please pay some attention to the actual distribution in your analyses. In this case he does have the highest papers with counts of 145, 46, 51,39,... but these are all review papers, which normally get very high counts because everyone cites the recent reviews whether or not they even read them. The highest non-review paper has 23 citations. As usual , this includes only those papers in journals that are either published in English or have published English translations (eg Russian Chemical Reviews), but people normally do publish their best work in such journals precisely in order that it be seen and cited. My decision to say weak delete rather than weak keep is based on the large proportion of cites that come from a closely associated colleague. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 28 February 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.