Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevgen Zadorin

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. bd2412 T 01:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgen Zadorin

[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)

Not notable, written by a banned sockpuppet, and clearly promotional

Google scholar shows almost no citations The papers of his listed in the article are conference presentations that have never been cited. There are no books in WorldCat

Furthermore, the intent is clearly promotional , as demonstrated ny the repeated inclusion of his association with a non-notable company.

The person who did write it is a known sockpuppet of Marelo842. Under the current rules, we can not use speedy G5, because the article was written before the sockpuppettry was detected. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The use of the adjective "exceptional" is usually a robust indicator that the subject is not exceptional. Publishing 40 papers is hardly a claim to notability , even I can better that. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and that claim was "papers" not :peer-reviewed papers" --and there isn't any evidence for it. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG. Promotional content written by a sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase "no credible claim to significance" comes to mind. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Published more than 40 papers" could, in some cases, indicate a credible claim of significance, if those 40 papers had been heavily cited by others. These ones haven't, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Three papers in 2006 in Vascular Pharmacology journal which has kind of a 'meh' impact factor. Nothing to base a claim of notability upon. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Created by a sockpuppet and fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2019 (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.