Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Bashkansky

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. Consensus is that Bashkansky satisfies neither the notability guidelines for professors nor the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wkipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Bashkansky

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

Fails WP:PROF. Citations in Google scholar are 18, 17, 16, .... so he cannot be shown an authority in his subject. None of the other WP:PROF standards are met. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof as clearly shown by nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The conference he supposedly founded shows no evidence of being significant enough to be notable, let alone to convey notability on its founder. No other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I had originally PRODed this article. It was contested and I asked for his review. I concur with the assessment, and also found nothing on my own that would suggest the subject meets either PROF or the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ORT Braude is umm, far from world class. What did give me some pause, in terms of assertion of notability, were the claims that he was behind a new psychometric method in Israel (which actually could confer notability on different grounds than PROF - just plain GNG) - however checking for sources in Hebrew on this (and on him in general) - doesn't lead to much (basically only to - [1] + promotion from ORT) - so that's a no-go either.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability requirements for professors --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk)21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling in by clearly agreeing with nom. I cannot see any indication the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF guidelines. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:03, 11 September 2017 (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.