Deletion of Georgi Gladyshev

Comment: It doesn't really address the lack of third-party evaluation, but here are some independent lists of some of his publications: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Agp-gladyshev http://www.turpion.org/php/author.phtml?authorid=17077 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gladyshev%20GP%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVCitation. There is at least one book review https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1004904703383 here. He really does seem to be a published academic, but whether he passes  is a different question
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I see no |verification that this person passes . Note that most of the article is an analysis of his work based entirely on primary sources, most published in a journal which charges a fee for publication (http://www.mdpi.org/oaj-supports.htm link). For example http://www.mdpi.org/ijms/papers/i7030098.pdf this article cites Lib Thims (who is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:PROF)

Comment: After all this debate and all our searching and despite his long publication record the evidence for his mainstream scientific notability is still weak at best. And as long as this article exists here on Wikipedia it will likely continue to be a  for this unscientific nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Coren, if Gladyshev is unaware of how Thims/Carnot is using his work on these websites then how come he cites them in what is alleged to be his work? See ref.24 of http://www.mdpi.org/ijms/papers/i7030098.pdf this article which I have discussed in some detail above. Please also find a reliable source on which you have based the new claims you have added to the article. Others may be interested in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgi_Gladyshev&oldid=160927145 old version. Our opinions about the quality of Gladyshev's work - for good or ill - are irrelevant. We may only make any such statements on the basis of third-party reliable sources per . None have been provided. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)