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. J04n(talk page) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Titar[edit]

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

Subject does not seem notable, and intent behind creation seems to be promotional. No actual references given. Benboy00 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---I had the great pleasure to work with the late Prof. Denisyuk, which is mentioned in the "Titar" article. Yuri would have been very angry about the fakt to be referenced in the context of the fake claims by Bleen. Furthermore the word _holographic_ has a precise physical meaning and is not to be confused with some 3D projection into e.g. (synthetic) fog. The "Titar" article definitely is missused for promotion.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.5.123 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do seem to be some problems relating to this article. First, there are the two SPAs who are responsible for most of the article. Then, a search on Google Scholar turns up the book (cited all of 9 times) and a few articles, none cited often and some not cited at all. I was able to ascertain that he has published in reputable journals and in conference proceedings, but can find no indication that his work has had impact on any scientific field. If kept, the article would need references, and the long bibliography should be replaced with a very short list of his most influential works (if there are influential works). LaMona (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article is beyond repair:
- POV - The article along with several other Bleen Inc. personnel article (some already delete, i.e. Oleg Kokhan) ware crated by the same two editors roughly at the time of Bleen compounding campaign start, apparently in attempt to grant it some credibility, by claiming a lot of (unsourced) credibility and notability for them.
- Verifiability - The article highly praises credibility of the described person, while failing to provide any sources at at all. They mention some of the published work, but the rest of the article and biography is just a long list of claims lacking any sources. Googling the person's name in several languages including Russian didn't reveal any valid sources for such claims/
- Notability - The person appears to be nowhere as notable as original authors try to portray him ("(...)scientific work is well-recognized around the world"). While it is true that he has several publications, there is no (or very little) citations of his work, no references, no references in professional or general press (unrelated to a recent Bleen campaign).
To summarize: I say the article created for the sole purpose of promoting person's company/project, which no sources, credibility or notability, should be deleted. Zigmar (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (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.