Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Barvinok

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.

Alexander Barvinok[edit]

The result was keep (non-admin closure). J 947 05:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unproven notability. Does not meet WP:NPROF. XXN, 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely cited according to GS (WP:PROF#C1), and fellowship of the American Mathematical Society passes WP:PROF#C3 [1]. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly cited in low cited field. Why on earth should he be expected to meet WP:NPROF? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I see that the nominator has recently created a lot of AfDs of people with Russian names. Does he have a POV? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 but the pass of #C3 is clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- enough hits in Google books to convince me of notability. Also passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published works, with sufficient library holdings: Worldcat Identities. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've argued with k.e.coffman in the past on Afds. So it's a surprise seeing me on the same side as them. But coffman makes the right points - the subject qualifies on both PROF and AUTHOR. Lourdes 05:51, 1 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.