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 appears to lean towards deletion. I did see Yagasi's comments, but they didn't convince anyone and most of them aren't addressing the deletion rationale provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zinigrad[edit]

Michael Zinigrad (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)

This is a seemingly well-sourced, albeit somewhat promotional, biography of an Israeli-Russian academic. The most recent expansion was done by a single purpose account, with perhaps a whiff of WP:UPE. Given the efforts that have gone into this article to make this person appear notable, this is going to be a long nomination, for which I apologize in advance. There are also several long discussions on the article's talk page and on the talk page of WP:PROF (since archived). I start with the criteria of PROF.

• PROF#1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"): Zinigrad has a Google Scholar profile here. Even ignoring the fact that GScholar often overestimates citation rates, no paper has more than 87 cites, and with 800 citations in total and an h-index of 14 we are well below what we generally take as meeting this criterion, especially in a high density field as materials science. (Also note that the Web of Science, as mentioned on the article's talk page, gives much lower citation counts and an h-index of only 5). Hence: Fails PROF#1.
• PROF#2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level") can be claimed to be met by two honorary degrees from the Russian Academy of Sciences and the South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University, not a major institution to say the least. However, there was agreement here that these honorary degrees are too doubtful to meet PROF#2. There are also some a few memberships of the editorial boards of a few (non-notable) journals, but even if those journals were notable, there is a longstanding consensus that such memberships do not confer notability. There is also an (unsourced) "Outstanding Scientists Award 2014" bestowed by the Israeli Ministry of Immigration and Absorption (from the page of this photo on Commons), but this does not appear to be the kind of prestigious award mention in this criterion. Hence: Fails PROF#2.
• PROF#3 ("is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor") does not appear to be claimed. Hence: Fails PROF#3.
• PROF#4 ("The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions") does nott appear to be claimed either. Hence: Fails PROF#4.
• PROF#5 ("The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"): Nope. Hence: Fails PROF#5.
• PROF#6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"): Zinigrad has been dean (which does not confer automatic notability) and currently is Rector of Ariel University. The latter, however, is not the "highest-level", because at Ariel that is the president. Hence: Fails PROF#6.
• PROF#7 ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"): no such claims are made nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#7.
• PROF#8 ("The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area"): Again, no claim in this direction is made, nor is there any evidence in this direction apparent. Hence: Fails PROF#8.
• PROF#9 ("The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC"): is not applicable here. Hence: Fails PROF#9.

Finally, there is the possibility that a person, while failing PROF, meets WP:GNG. However, among the (currently) 36 references and 4 "further reading" items, all are either not independent or not in-depth. In conclusion, this biography fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above, and this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the discussion on the article talk page. I think the easiest case for notability would be through PROF#1; however from the discussion at the talk page I don't believe this threshold is met. Ajpolino (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randykitty's well-reasoned argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The careful analysis here confirms my impression in the earlier discussion that he is below the threshold on all counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons amply explored on talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: Randykitty, your accusation of WP:UPE violates WP:AGF. I was never ever paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. I want you to withdraw that accusation and apologize. Yagasi (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised that you took this remark so personal: Are you a SPA? No? Well, then that remark obviously was not intended for you and an apology is not needed. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So probably an apology to me is not needed. But WP:UPE not supported by proof can't be an argument for deleting, mentioning it here was irrelevant. Yagasi (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While there was a discussion on the article's talk page Randykitty stopped participating in it and answering me. Only now I have learned that he started another discussion here, but I was not aware of it. Anyway, I provide here a copy of my last edits on the article's talk page (that were not answered) and expect comments from the Community:
  • Before applying criteria 6 we should pay attention to general notes which state: "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule... It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." Isn't it successful to hold a post of a university rector? Israel has fewer university rectors than Nobel laureates. Yagasi (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the mass emigration from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s Israel received a significant number of immigrant scientists, but the state's university infrastructure was not sufficient to integrate too many of them. Hundreds of immigrant professors and doctors could not be engaged neither as scientists nor as higher educators. But unlike all those Zinigrad was among the most successful. Yagasi (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, while some Israeli universities tried to prevent Ariel from becoming the eight university of the country, Zinigrad founded The Materials Research Center, which included research teams and five laboratories. Isn't it a significant impact in the area of higher education? Why should we appreciate the founders of the Technion, the Hebrew University and the Weizmann Institute and underestimate the impact on the Start-up Power made by the Arial founders? Yagasi (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emigrant scientists of the 1990s emigration received many appointments in higher education institutions around the world. But can the Community remember any other emigrant scientist from the former Soviet Union that achieved the post of a university rector? In the hundreds of American or Germany universities? Yagasi (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before applying any criteria (that can be done later) the Community should think out of the box. What does that mean: "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice..."? Yagasi (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yagasi (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Those arguments seem to me to be WP:RGW, rather than based on WP policies and guidelines for notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a part of the article's page but of discussion pages. Citing here a WP guideline is not a WP:RGW. Yagasi (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmt Look, if there is sourcing about an entry, let the entry stay. I'm not going to pretend I got into the weeds with regard this one. I'm speaking in general terms. We shouldn't be worried about identities of editors. We shouldn't be straining at gnats with concern supposed independence of sourcing from its subject, when no one's questioning the sourcing's reliability as far as statements of fact. (Most of you're going to think my comments off-topic make that insane, meanwhile I muse to my own self A-a-are these guys o-o-out of their freakin' minds? <sighs> But: If we are going to get into petsonalities, what it is that I'm always musing to myself is this: How does an entire group of individuals who swarm about these type of discussions come to be so utterly obsessed with status? And rank? Well--it stinks <pun intended>! Know what RANK's folk etymology ouht be? With regard such-as-Mr. Zinigrad's Wikibiography, seat-of-the-pantsedly ah ah ah "Red-linking Academic [sic] Not Korrikt-ness." How is the entire doubleyew-pee's Pee-aR-Oh-eF guideline's freaking ediface not "original research"? In its effect of enjoining advocates-for-whatever-coverage also to argue subjectively about who / what "is important"? Enough of this already.)......--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (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.