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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Maleshin

[edit]
Dmitry Maleshin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a Russian legal scholar. According to his GScholar profile, he has been cited 101 times (h-index=5). The only claim to notability under WP:ACADEMIC would be that he is editor-in-chief of the Russian Law Journal, but that was deleted after an AFD. No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC. No sources showing that he meets WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify what I said in the nom. I don't think that an h-index of 5 proves that there is no notability, nor does the citation count of 101 (proving absence of anything is very difficult if not impossible, anyway). You're absolutely right that such counts are generally low in this field. However, what I want to say is that by looking at citation counts/h-index, I don't find any evidence in support of notability. An h-index of 2.8 is ridiculously easy to get (one only has to cite oneself in three papers...). What this all shows is that citations are not very helpful in this field to establish notability. However, if there had been lots of citations, that could have established notability (so I mentioned it as part of WP:BEFORE). Hope this sounds not too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I tried to explain above, the low h-index is not a reason to delete, it just doesn't provide any evidence for notability. In the absence of reliable sources, lack of notability ("No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC") is the policy-based reason that this is proposed for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it is difficult doesn't mean we should throw our notability criteria out. In any case, it is not necessary for someone to be internationally known in order to be notable. We have quite a lot of articles on people that are only locally notable. Sources in Russian are acceptable, too, as long as they are reliable and independent of the subject. I note that there is apparently no article for this person in the Russian WP either... How is his name written in Russian? (That may help us find sources). --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources and articles are here: His Moscow State University profile with more than 120 articles: https://istina.msu.ru/profile/maleshin/ Academia.edu profile: https://moscowstate.academia.edu/DmitryMaleshin Yarik1949 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publishing is not what makes somebody notable. All academics publish, that is what they do and what they are paid for. What counts is whether those publications have been noted, i.e., have had an impact that can be verified by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The two sources you give above (academia.com and his university page) are not independent of the subject, because he likely provided that information himself. BTW, I note that "Малешин Дмитрий Ярославович" does not give a single hit on the Russian wiki either. In order for us to have an article, a subject needs to meet either the general notability guideline, os a specialty guideline such as WP:ACADEMIC. I see no evidence that Maleshin meets either. I understand your frustration: creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. But please read those guidelines, because following them will make yoru life here much easier. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maleshin meets most of criterias that mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC, including: 1)significant impact in their scholarly discipline; 2) member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; 3)The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education; 4)The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post; 5)chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Please have a look updated page. The problem that we measure Maleshin's notability differently...Yarik1949 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please also try to understand the policies that you are reading (and don't forget the explanatory notes).. "Membership" in prestigious societies is not enough, after all, the only thing one has to do is pay the dues. It needs to be elected into somthing like a national academy of sciences or similar prestigious honor. As for the editorship, Maleshin is editor for two journals, neither of them notable, hence neither of them "a major well-established academic journal". If anybody is not listening here, I'm afraid it is you yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can tell me that as often as you like, but the community decision at the AfD was that notability was not supported by any verifiable evidence. Please get familiar with the policies and guidelines that I have linked to, a good understanding of them will make your life decidedly easier here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2015 (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.
More