Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Doroshkevich

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Doroshkevich

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

Delete: apparent lack of notability in his field. Quis separabit? 21:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS citations adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning keep~~ Pls see below: Original comment: I believe the subject passes GNG, despite (possibly) low citation count. Here's the Google books preview. Given how often the subject is mentioned in contemporary English-language language sources, it's highly likely that additional coverage is available offline and / or in Russian, also taking into account that his career took place in the pre-internet era. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the important parts here are actually WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF and none of them are convinced since there's simply nothing significant, therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - false information, possibly a hoax, at best puffery; Arno Penzias and his team found the cosmic background radiation, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work. I've met Penzias, and professor, you're no Penzias. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also personally knew Ralph Alpher, who had done theoretical work in that field. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete on second thoughts. Could be recreated in the future if anyone is willing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment. Despite Bearian's brash comment above, we are not dealing with a hoax here. The source cited in the article (the paper of Zel'dovich and Novikov) is not independent because Novikov was a co-aothor of the paper of Doroshkevich being discussed there, but the story itself is both well-known and is well-documented by multiple reliable sources completely independent from Doroshkevish and Novikov, and from Zel'dovich's Moscow school in general. There are quite a few western books, e.g. here [1][2], [3],[4], [5],[6],[7], that recount the history of the Doroshkevish-Novikov paper, and explain the context of its relation to the work of Penzais and Wilson, in substantial detail. The above references are just a small sample of what's available on this topic in the literature. However, as far as notability of Doroshkevish is concerned, we may still be dealing with a WP:BIO1E situation -- I am not sure. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is usually cited as "A.G. Doroshkevish", and a GScholar search for "A.G. Doroshkevish" gives an h-index of about 34, which is pretty high. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found another source on the French Wikipedia article and used it to expand this one. It has impeccable credentials both for its (famous western physicist) editors and publisher and confirms that this story is no hoax. Doroshkevich and Novikov did indeed discover the background radiation (after Shmaonov did even earlier but was forgotten), prior to Penzias and Wilson. Another source that I didn't use (because Doroshkevich was one of the authors) also mentions rumors of another prediscovery in Japan. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- switching back to keep as the article has been expanded with new sources added. It's an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in view of the newly improved state of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (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.