Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Gorshkov

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. Despite the fact that the article has only been discussed for five days, I am closing it as delete since this is a clear WP:BLP violation. (One can consider it as WP:SNOW). It mixes two individuals with similar names (both notable per WP:ACADEMIC), and the creator clearly is not competent enough to remove the problems. Since we are talking about notable subjects, there is no prejudice against recreation, but (a) recreates article(s) should not contain BLP violations, and the notability must be demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Gorshkov[edit]

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

Deletion requested by Subject at OTRS ticket 2014060210001421 because "almost every sentence in the article is either false or nonsensical" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the part of the article that I ran through verification was cogent and verified (although it may be nonsense to a physicist, I'm not one). The author of the article indicates on the user talk page a wikibreak with a return on 10 June. --Bejnar (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text of the article does indeed contain a very large admixture of garbage physics and makes me wonder if it is a subtle attack page. Although the author's h-index?? (question about identity) is high enough to pass WP:Prof#C1, I am inclined to agree with the OTRS and delete without prejudice for later recreation. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment If the author of the page would like to keep it, a much shorter page (like this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Maria_Rey - for example) would be much more appropriate... (comment by subject) Avgorshkov (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'd be happy if you'd be willing to edit down the article into the facts that seem relevant to you (I don't think there's much fear of a biased article emerging if most of the work is trimming). I'd vote delete only because of your request, and keep if you think it should stay. Notability is established. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Editing your own Wikipedia article is the best route to get laughed at by fellow physicists, so I'd rather not edit it myself.Avgorshkov (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't expect that by my arrival home, I will be greeted with deletion of well notable individual. I personally begin to believe that OTRS team issued a false deletion request since non of the article is false or senseless. First of all, the article is about physicist, and we do need to write on their discoveries, (i.e. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton have their discoveries being mentioned). Maybe the discoveries are broad? Second, calling (or suspecting that the article is a "subtle attack page", without providing a diff) is in violation of good faith. Third, calling the subjects' discoveries "garbage", is another violation of good faith, because as a son of a scientist and a Wikipedian, I wouldn't call a single scientist "garbage" (unless the h-index is low). Fourth, I lack of knowledge in physics myself, but I wrote the article solely based on the h-index. For further info, I would suggest talking to user @Randykitty:.--Mishae (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call the LP's discoveries "garbage". I called the material written about them by the creator "garbage". I remind the creator that there are provisions to revoke the editing privileges of people who are unable to edit Wikipedia competently. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As a separate note: I wrote many articles on various academics and athletes, but my work was never called "garbage", "nonsense", or "false". Due to the lack of info when it comes to academics, we as Wikipedians need to rely at least on secondary sources, and that's what I did. Academics are usually not covered by third-party sources unlike athletes or politicians. I personally believe that the article should remain as is, because I don't see anything wrong with it. It have information which is cited and have 16 refs which more then enough.--Mishae (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I have added 2 Russian-language sources, but that's as far as it will go. So, in my humble opinion, I think people should reconsider and vote Keep, per notability guidelines.--Mishae (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent considerable time on this one, scratching my head, doing google searches with various combinations, rethinking things. My sense is, if there is a Wikipedia for physics, he belongs there. Clearly he is a productive academic, with numerous well-cited papers (although most citations list him as one of many academics.) The article in its current form is almost all primary research, discussing his papers, his findings, and as such constitutes original research. So, essentially, the article is a CV, a resume. What we really need here in Wikipedia is a secondary source to examine his work, discuss it in detail, explain what it means, how it affects people, and after looking through ten SERP pages, I did not find that. That does not mean it does not exist, but that's what we need: write-ups in Popular Science, mainstream newspapers, Discover magazine, with sharp science writers making sense of it, or other physicists discussing his work, so that people such as myself can begin to grasp it, to help the topic meet the general notability guideline. When this happens, we can write an article which says subject X is notable for ... and be able to write something other than he cranked out 100+ papers with many other physicists. Reluctantly, I vote delete, but in future, I hope to see this subject back in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 2 mainstream sources, although Russian, it makes him notable. I don't see original research here, because his papers are considered to be secondary, not primary sources. Somebody mentioned to me that original research is when you write something, and live sensible info refless, now here, everything is cited.--Mishae (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It took me a year or so until an admin schooled me in the meaning of original research. I wrote a huge long article which got deleted, and I fussed about the deletion, and in the back-and-forth, the admin was gracious enough to explain this subtle but important concept. Essentially, when an academic publishes a paper, that is his or her original research. It originated with that person. So, in this case, his papers are primary research. What we need is someone once removed from that, to comment on it, preferably in a peer-reviewed publication, when facts are checked, who can comment objectively and reliably about what it means, so we can make sense of it, to have some perspective; that is the idea behind secondary sources. Then, we could write a good Wikipedia article which maybe people could understand.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct. That is why citations in databases like Google scholar are so important. The subject achieves notability from these but the article is so poorly written that WP:TNT. Other articles written by the creator, who appears to have an inadequate grasp of both physics and written English, need to be looked into. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: If Google Scholar citations are important (and all of my articles related to physics have them), what's the issue? Previously all my articles were based on Google Scholar and I got schooled for writing sub-stub articles. So, to make the article more in depth I began using journal articles (since CV wont cut it either). As far as grammar goes, yes, English is my second language, and I am sorry if it hurts Wikipedia image. All that I am trying to do is to write articles on notable people, that's all. You don't need to delete an article, just fix it, and it will hopefully stay.--Mishae (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Well, its not necessarily being written by him, it is published by notable scientific journal such as APS and various Physical Reviews. Maybe I should rephrase it by saying that his paper appeared in such and such journal? But, I got schooled by someone here about it, saying that the way how it sounds, it looks like peacock words. So, now I am confused about what to do, because academics are quite hard, and are of my interest since there is a small amount of them on Wikipedia. I wiil be happy to search for more refs, but for such I need a Russian user who is interested in physics. I can check WikiProject Russia, maybe folks there are keen to help???--Mishae (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like @Avgorshkov: to elaborate on which parts of the article in his opinion were false, or didn't made sense. Keep in mind that my native language is Russian, so if I miss interpreted something, I hope you will help me fix it. As a side note: I wrote the article on the subject solely based on the h-index and I didn't knew of subject existence until a friend of mine (also a Russian physicist), gave me Optics and Photonics News magazine where in the end of the year 2013, gospodin (Russian for Mr.) Gorshkov wrote one of his discoveries. If not for that, no one would have known of him.--Mishae (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @Mishae: First sentence: at the moment my middle name is incorrect (it confuses me with somebody else). I have only 45 peer-reviewed articles (not 100 - Google Scholar lists some other stuff that's not peer reviewed articles) - check out my cv in the people page of http://groups.jqi.umd.edu/gorshkov/home . h-index is somewhat exaggerated (I think it's more like 22). Second sentence: I have nothing to do with Nizhny Novgorod. I am here: http://groups.jqi.umd.edu/gorshkov/home. Third sentence: I've never studied at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Peyronel was and Liang is an MIT student with Vuletic - not Harvard students with Lukin. It's also kind of random to mention them here. Fourth sentence: "of which he became a fellow" is funny - I was just there on a postdoc fellowship for the entire time. Fifth sentence: kind of correct, although I'm really hired by NIST, but I do work at JQI. Sixth sentence and on: the August 21, 2007 discussion is the work of somebody else. And then pretty much the entire discussion of physics is unintelligible either for physics reasons or English reasons or both (and was a source of a lot of entertainment for my colleagues). E.g. ""photon retrieval in its free space and its storage there" makes no sense either physics-wise or English-wise, I never wrote anything about "hamiltonian vector fields" or "chemical polarity", Ref 12 is a theoretical work (not experimental), etc... etc... etc... The section on meetings is particularly inappropriate (and also full of nonsense like the reference to wrong John Bollinger and the fact that the two randomly chosen talks were not even given by me) - all physicists go to conferences and give talks - there is nothing special in this. In conclusion, I'm grateful for your kind attention, but unfortunately the main result of this article was that it provided ample entertainment for my colleagues... That's why I asked for the deletion of the page. If you really want to keep the page, something short of this kind - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Maria_Rey - would be much more appropriate... Avgorshkov (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Avgorshkov: O.K. How would you spell your middle name? So, I come to expect that in fact I wrote an article on a different Alexey Gorshkov??? I never knew that there were two physicists with same name and last name! Like, the one here says that he works for Нижнегородской госуниверситет им. Н.И. Лобачевского (English: N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod) and that in 1990 he came to one of the rectors at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Ref here: http://chel.kp.ru/daily/23979/262305/. Also, please except my apology since I made a mock out of you, even though my article was in good spirits. Also, you are still qualified for notability because under our guidelines, an academic with an h-index 18 and above is passable for an academic, and Wikipedia do rely exclusively on Google Scholar, Web of Science and ResearcherID, to name a few. We don't however take CV in a consideration as reference because its primary, while your journals are considered secondary and the Press (if you have been mentioned like in New York Times or something will be essential third party sources, and are valued by us. :)--Mishae (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - @Mishae: My middle name is Vyacheslavovich, but I rarely use it - I just use the middle initial V. Yeah, the references above about Nizhny Novgorod and about Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology are about somebody else. I understand that you didn't mean any harm - no worries. But I do know that some of my colleagues at other universities had research group meetings, during which the wikipedia page was projected on a big screen and laughed at at length :) Avgorshkov (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Again my apologies, although I am happy that I gave you and your group a good laugh, through I am sorry it was during one of your meetings, that might be embarrassing. O.K. So, I will clean it up a hair bit, so that it wont be about you, because most refs are Russian either way.--Mishae (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that was not my group meeting - that group meeting was in a completely different university in Colorado; I wasn't there and I found out about it from a friend. I suspect there were other similar occasions around the world :) Avgorshkov (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is essentially a Wikipedia contributor, making a case that subject X is notable, by building from primary sources, essentially, making an original argument. What Wikipedia needs are Wikipedia contributors quoting secondary sources, reflecting what they say. Is the distinction clear?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't journals are secondary sources??? Like, lets ask user @Ironholds:, because he said to me that journals are considered to be secondary sources. Maybe he didn't knew, maybe I. As far as your first sentence goes: The current article is essentially a Wikipedia contributor, making a case that subject X is notable is actually should be WP:COI because subject X is the contributor to the current article's talkpage. Lucky, the subject haven't started editing it. According to WP:COI the subject can't edit an article about himself, which makes me wonder why user @Mscuthbert: wants the subject to edit it his way saying next: if you'd be willing to edit down the article into the facts that seem relevant to you... And as far as his opinion goes: I don't think there's much fear of a biased article emerging if most of the work is trimming, I end up wondering have you considered the fact that if we will trim it, we will have a "skeleton" of an article? Like, we suppose to expand them, not trimming. Plus, if we will play the subject X's way, it will be the end of our project!--Mishae (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journals are secondary sources. That doesn't solve for the fact that your long explanation of what the journal article says and means is original research. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. Journals can be secondary sources, but for many statements journal articles are very much primary source. (Which can be OK to use, but with appropriate care.)T R 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The more that this BLP is delved into the more of a mess it appears to be, including confusion between different persons. The physics parts of the BLP are still drivel. I repeat my suggestion that the BLP be deleted without prejudice against later recreation with the proviso that its creator has no more to do with it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep I cleaned up a mess, and yes, I discovered that there are two physicists with the same name and same last name. Originally my idea was to write an article based on the h-index. But since there are two of them (one is Alexey Vyacheslavovich Gorshkov and the other is Alexey Vladimirovich Gorshkov), the latter of which became known in the Russian press (check sources), I became to aware that the secondary sources are belong to him, so I will live them, and remove the ones which have to do with the first one.--Mishae (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Mishae:Since you are focusing now on Alexey Vladimirovich Gorshkov, don't forget to remove references to my work, which are currently references [4-10], and the reference to the website of my research group (at the bottom of the page). I also wouldn't be so sure that Ref [3] is about the same guy - the guy in Ref [3] had Dubna affiliation in 2007. Avgorshkov (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Avgorshkov: Where did you got that information from, I am curious?--Mishae (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Mishae: His affiliation is listed at the bottom of this page - http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.021605 . Also he is 4th author there out of 20 (first and last author are the main ones), so this paper is certainly not worth mentioning even if it is his. I would also check very carefully whether the first two references are about the same person. And even if they are, I have serious doubts about whether this person is worth of a wikipedia entry, but that's not for me to decide. Avgorshkov (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Avgorshkov: Question, is it possible for us to exchange Skype or e-mail addresses, because I am still planning on writing more articles on physicists and would be happy for any future advice. Plus, that way we can speak our native language, and maybe come to a better understanding of each other. I will be glad to have a future professor as my friend. --Mishae (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mishae: My email is available on the website of my research group. However, as I lead a sizable research group of postdocs and graduate students, I'm afraid I won't have time to help you with your work.Avgorshkov (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If I were the subject of an article consisting of such pseudo-physics rubbish, I would be very insulted. Remove it as a violation of WP:BLP, if nothing else. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @JRSpriggs: I agree with this characterization of the current state of the page (and of its original state, in which I was the insulted subject :)).Avgorshkov (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per my previous comment. Avgorshkov (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2014 (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.