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. — Scientizzle 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Koulikov[edit]

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

No evidence for meeting WP:PROF criteria. Looks like a self-promotion page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability per WP:PROF, looks promotional. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Notability generally requires independent reliable sources discussing the subject (rather than just articles published by the subject himself), and none of the citations qualify; also doesn't seem to qualify under the specific guidelines for WP:PROF as noted above. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - qualifies as speedy A7 - UtherSRG (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

Despite my many references and valid points, you have not responded with much sense to my queries. I still have hope that the wiki community will see this discussion and join in with a spirit of objectivity. I want to take this oppotunity to mention once again that the whole point of placing Valentin's bio on wikipedia is simply to support the free sharing of information about ideas known to science. People deserve to know. Now, Valentin's biography is subject to debate despite my own info on the matter, but his ideas are not in dispute, and are very well referenced despite your incessant deletion of the sections mentioning them.

First off, Materialscientist, you said yourself that you are familiar with the facts regarding the human eye's visual perception of infrared laser light. Why is it then, that you delete this info. Do you not want other people to know what you and many other scientists are already aware of? Forgive me, but why is it necessary to wait for these facts to be published in books, when we have literally dozens of secondary sources including the ones I link on the page (the article contains a direct reference to the paper that originally stated and described the first occasion where the effect was observed.)I do not see any logical reason to remove this info from the article, because wikipedia editing must be based on common sense (as is stated in the pertinent documents) and not on editors' bias.

Secondly, Ckatz, you still have not replied with any detail or supporting evidence to any one of my questions or points regarding your deletion of several sections of the Time Travel wiki page. Once again, common sense would suggest the removed section (dealing with the fermi paradox solution as explained by the use of light speed among advanced civilizations) is as simple as 2X2=4. It does not require dozens of secondary sources or supporting evidence, only the mind of an attentive reader. The statement itself is well sourced and is not controversial. It is infinitely verifiable.

Thirdly, Valentin's bio should be decided by the readers of wikipedia and how interesting they find his ideas. It has nothing to do with the mainstream as described by the editors, or even their distance from reality. This gentleman is only one among very many scientists in this field of many generally controversial ideas (all of which are mentioned in other wikipedia articles already), and has sufficiently interesting ideas that they would be of service to any readers who are interested in time or space travel. --AarCart (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No verifiable evidence of significant citability or coverage of his work by other researchers, no significant academic awards, editorships, etc, or evidence of satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF. GBooks[1] and GScholar[2] searches for his name in Russian return basically nothing of relevance. Moreover, appears to be a WP:FRINGE case, so that WP:PROF also requires passing WP:BIO for inclusion. No evidence of significant biographical coverage by independent sources either. Nsk92 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nsk92 that WP:FRINGE appears to be more relevant than WP:PROF — the article does not indicate that he has an academic appointment and the theories it describes are highly nonstandard. But regardless of whether we consider WP:FRINGE, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG, he does not seem to pass — I can find nothing in Google books, Google news archive, and Google scholar to indicate that his theories have had any impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a random list of facts about a fringe theorist. I can't see how he's notable, and none of the sources can verify that he's notable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. Nsk92 and David Eppstein - your blind faith in search engines is really stunning. I would like to believe you myself but unfortunately for you and others like you I have a huge list of scientific publications of this guy, over a hundred - in the fields from quantum electronics, radio electroncs, geophysics to formal linguistics and relativity. And I checked this list by making real official requests in real university libraries - just to be sure. By the way, just for your info, his name was spelled Kulikov, not Koulikov for long time and a lot of his works were published long before Internet epoch, etc., etc. And this guy is worth noting in Wiki not because of all these publications (they just make it sure that he is serious scientist) but because he in addition to that has a lot of other really interesting ideas - and the verifiable ones too.--AarCart (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much that I have faith in search engines finding everything — I know they don't, especially for pre-internet non-English writers — but that we need concrete evidence for his notability in order to keep the article. Often, search engines can find such evidence when it exists, and allow us to save an inadequately sourced article such as this one, but they have failed to do so this time, and we have nothing else. Your vague attestations that he has "interesting ideas" are not good enough, and neither is a long publication list — what we need is explicit evidence that significant numbers of other people have taken note of his ideas. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AarCart, have you actually read the policies on notability (and the sub-articles on notability for people in general and notability for academics) that myself and others have linked to above? The mere fact that someone is a published author does not mean they should have a wikipedia article according to wikipedia's policies, nor does the fact that some readers might find the article interesting. Again, the general policy for notability of individuals is that there need to be reliable sources writing about the subject by third parties: to quote the notability-for-people article above, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". And for academics, even if there are not such third-party sources they may be considered notable if one of the following criteria is met:

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
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.

Can you present evidence that Valentin Koulikov meets either the general criteria for notability of individuals or the specific criteria for notability of academics? If not, I think we should consider the case closed, as wikipedia's policies are pretty clear. Hypnosifl (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

As a matter of fact, I can, and very easily. This evidence is within the policy on notability of people.

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."

Worthy of notice, significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Notable in the sense of being FAMOUS or POPULAR - although not irrelevant is SECONDARY. I understand this is a guideline, but it has been re-inforced by "established practice," and it should not be so easily revoked by a group of editors who do not read their own guidelines with attention.

Furthermore, the bio can even be supported even under the provision of a creative writer as a

"person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Under verifiability, "self published sources," it says the following "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Have the editors actually examined even the self-published claims? If they had read them, they should have seen that there is no charlatanism involved, but solid logical - scientific thinking. If anything, the very fact that this information could alter mainstream perception makes it all the more interesting to the wikipedia reader.

On top of that, there ARE available third party journals and they have been linked in the past. I will link them again here.

It is worth noting (notable) that Philica's motto is "where ideas are free." Philica is also far more selective about what it publishes than wikipedia; Its editors being members of the science community.

In short, I do not see that there is a problem with either notability or verifiability per wikipedia guidelines and policies. I ask the editors and any other readers to carefully re-read the policies as well as the article. At the very worst, the biography section is not verifiable because none of the editors knew who Valentin was before they read the article. His ideas, however, are solid and verifiable through other sources. They are not even original ideas! I am in fact, forced to wonder if the editors are as objective as they ought to be. --AarCart (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2010 (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.