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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semyon Ioffe

[edit]

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

Fringe researcher bio has no real footprint outside directory and promo pages. No GNews hits; GBooks gives one false hit and one perhaps genuine hit but nothing having to do with the fringey content that is highlighted in the article, which reads more like a resume than anything. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the comments above are somehow biased. I would not have posted this article had this scientist had no digital footprint. there are multiple references in science journals and magazines when searched through both google and yahoo. This respected scientist is not a "fringe" researcher. This article was specifically posted as a continuance of an article about Dr.Igor Smirnov to ensure that the history of the technology that these 2 men discovered and developed doesn't disappear because this is the kind of information that isn't available on the internet as it is almost entirely in russian, Dr. Smirnov was a Rasputin like figurehead in the Russian media from the 1980's till his death. I met both of these met in the last 20 years and one of them has already passed away. It is extremely important that their work be documented online.--Newyork48 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone should tell him that his Twitter SPAMing kind of undermines the "respected scientist" image. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have met this man and English is not his first language, you can tell in his tweets. Your comments are very immature and have no place on this page which SHOULD BE FOR DISCUSSING REFERENCE TO HIS WORK AND WHETHER IT IS NOTABLE not what he uses twitter for which he is obviously trying to bring attention to his blog posts which is exactly what twitter is for. I have linked to a number of scientific journals where his work is published available for viewing online as well as requesting printed versions. I'm pretty sure that the wiki article explaining the rules to whether something is notable or not doesn't say, check google books and articles. Please try to keep the comments civilized.--Newyork48 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying. Scientists whose ideas are already widely notable usually aren't trying to get attention for them on Twitter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hows that exactly? I looked over the twitter account and its basically just links to new blog posts. i also read the blog posts. they are written to underscore new developments in their technologies operating testing with the government as well as new developments they make because, just like any technology, it is always being improved and developed for a wider array of applications. I'm pretty sure any scientist or any author for that matter posts everything they write on twitter if they had a twitter account which is exactly how new ideas get shared. We've gotten very far from the point again here. I re-wrote most of this particular article, and provided reference to printed publications. I would appreciate it if it was looked over and re-evaluated, thank you.--Newyork48 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't show us all these people giving him respect, how can we tell he's a "respected scientist"? Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only tiny impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Can't find these multiple references, agree with nom. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User by the way is a SPA creating articles about individuals involved with and technology distributed by Northam Technologies, which itself does not appear to be notable (Google search turns up mostly press releases, one mention in Wired). Ioffe is an executive of this company. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is his h-index? Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jonathanwallace. Ioffe does not appear to be the subject of serious coverage by independent 3rd parties. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2011 (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.