Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentin Smarandache (2nd nomination)
After reading both the article and all of the above, I assumed I would probably side with the "keep" camp, but in looking a little deeper, I've found two problematic pieces of information. First, the gravity and impact of his work claimed (goes to  #1) in the article is contravened by WoS &ndash; which is squarely where we would expect such impact to show up for someone working in mathematics and physics. For example, the article speaks of the "Smarandache constant", "Generalized Smarandache Palindrome", the "Smarandache hypothesis" in theoretical physics, etc. WoS shows only 3 papers, having citations of 1, 0, 0: h-index = 1. That figure is quite literally "next to nothing" in terms of impact. It is true that there are quite a few citations in GS, although a large fraction seem to be self-citations and citations from other unpublished works. (I went back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentin Smarandache|first AfD, which also points this out.) I'll admit that one might argue ''impact'' on the GS findings, but my feeling is that self and unpublished cites are not what is conventionally meant by that term. Smarandache seems to be somewhat on the fringe and he may have some fame therefrom, but I don't not believe that translates to notability ''per se''...which brings us to my second objection. He is the editor of journals, which would normally satisfy  #8, but these journals are neither major, nor well-established, as the policy requires. The http://ceser.res.in/ijamas.html ''International Journal of Applied Mathematics & Statistics'' is a relatively new journal and its web page indicates it is ''not'' indexed by WoS. Progress in Physics is an "alternative" journal that seems to publish unrefereed, often "crank" articles, see e.g. http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/toRabounski030508.html this. (Incidentally, the Progress in Physics article has no real sources, dead links, etc. &ndash; perhaps should be considered for deletion itself.) I think the conclusion that I come away with is that David's observation that Mr Smarandache is a relentless self-promoter is being kind. There's plenty of observation above and in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentin Smarandache|first AfD regarding his promotional prowess, in fact, this article was probably started by him (http://www.ip2location.com/64.106.24.51 Geolocate shows the anon creator account to be from his institution.) I would like to respectfully propose that he is so good at this that even some of the usually and rightfully skeptics among us have been snowed. In the end, the only legit argument for "keep" is that he is, in some sense, famous, but  suggests we should be dubious. Respectfully
— User:Agricola44, 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:FAME (Wikipedia:Notability)