Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Borodin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexei Borodin

Alexei Borodin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete as nonnotable young professor. In his CV there is a big section "Awards", which are actually various grants, no biggie. No eponymous laws, theorems, no sex scandals, etc. I.e., nothing to read or write about. mikkanarxi 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Feels like someday I'll be forced to write articles on all of the professors I've met in my life. KNewman 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom and above comments. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Has Clay Mathematics Institute homspage, which says he spent a semester at the IAS. These two statements are not true of the average mathematics professor; but it's borderline. Septentrionalis 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notoble enough for Wikipedia inclusion Graemec2 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Pmanderson. Borderline on WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete No claim made in article that he is notable enough for an article. If publications, awards, etc were added, maybe he would be. I could only find 1 pub, which I added. Other data bases might find more. If he is a full prof at such a major university, that alone is almost enough. Edison 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borodin is invited to speak at symposia all over the world, see [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Also look at the number of invited talks in his CV. I think this identifies Borodin as qualifying for WP:PROF criterion 2. Errabee 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Invited talks": you must be kidding. These are most prpobably regular talks at conferences, where people of course are "invited". Take for exampe a talk in 1999, a year after graduation. Must be really something, this guy, and he would be all over news as of now if it were something notable. Academics are making themselves "invited" all the time. This is part of their job description, to talk. Mukadderat 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • strong delete The phrases "done important research" and "prominent recent work" are not substantiated by any third-party evaluation. All professors are supposed to "do important research" Otherwise they are out of job, I guess. Mukadderat 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lots of peacock terms yet little to show for it. RFerreira 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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.