Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev

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. Coren, who rewrote the article to remove original research, makes what appears to me a definitive statement that has consensus among those participating in the debate. Chick Bowen 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Gladyshev

I can find no evidence of significant third-party commentary on this person's life, nor any significant analysis of his work in reliable sources independent of the subject. I suggest that this article should be deleted. Thanks. TreeKittens 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Warning: We are here to discuss this article, not any particular editors. If there are issues of POV pushing, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard as the case may require. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard mentioned the editor who has been discussed here in the section on the deleted article "human molecule." An interesting metric for WP to maintain might be the current top article creators where the article has been deleted. It would not make everything they did deletable, but it sure would raise a red flag. Keith Henson 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak keep; this article should probably gaged against WP:PROF, and we have to make some allocation to the information void that would necessarily have been caused by the iron curtain. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, I'm left convinced that Gladyshev is a well-respected scientist. He certainly is cited enough, and invited enough for lectures, to demonstrate that. We have little information on him, and most of it comes from a primary source, but I doubt his date of birth or the fact that he is well-published is contreversial. I've edited the article to remove the twisted interpretations of Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) (against which we should not judge Gladyshev) and changed my !vote accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (struk and replaced, see below). — Coren ^(talk) 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no verification that this person passes WP:PROF. Note that most of the article is an analysis of his work based entirely on primary sources, most published in a journal which charges a fee for publication (link). For example this article cites Lib Thims (who is User:Sadi Carnot) and his self-published work (ref.24) for some interesting claims. The references throughout these websites, articles and wikipedia pages are so self-referential and bizarre that I suspect we are being toyed with. Or educated. See also WP:BLP. Thanks --TreeKittens 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't really address the lack of third-party evaluation, but here are some independent lists of some of his publications: [1] [2] [3]. There is at least one book review here. He really does seem to be a published academic, but whether he passes WP:PROF is a different question. —David Eppstein 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I mad? I don't doubt that he is a real, published, academic. This is just very strange: Journal of Human Thermodynamics is run by Lib Thims/User:Sadi Carnot who wrote this article. It (self) publishes the work of Gladyshev, Thims and Shu-Kun Lin, who cite each other. That's fine. Probably. Most of the sources in this article are published in IJMS which is published by... Shu-Kun Lin. He says it's difficult to pay for in this post. He is answered by... Jimbo Wales who responds: "What do you mean? What are the costs? Can I help?" here I don't know what all this means really - but I think someone is trying to tell us something. I wish he'd just say it. More clues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. Forgive me if I'm bonkers - I feel I had to say it. Click around a bit... Also, no sources per WP:N ;-) --TreeKittens 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as WP:FRINGE, it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —David Eppstein 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree - if there is any significant commentary or analysis of this person or his work, attributed to independent reliable sources, then it should clearly be kept whether it is described as fringe or otherwise. I do not believe this is, as yet, the case. At the moment this article is entirely composed of original research based on primary sources which we amateurs are incapable of assessing. I also think that its creator cannot be trusted to have paraphrased these sources honestly. --TreeKittens 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by User:Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author.Kww 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most interesting. I didn't know this was a pattern, but suspected it. [email protected] Keith Henson 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google translation of a Russian page returns this and if this resume is accurate than notable. We have articles about crackpot scientists whose pseudo-science is even less baseless, maybe he just isn't crackpot enough to be notable as a true loony. KTo288 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google translation you link to is an almost exact copy of this page which is not a reliable published work, and certainly not an independent source. On the same website you will find this page. If you scroll through you'll see a picture of our friend User:Sadi Carnot. The same as was on his user page. There is also a picture of his "book" and links to several of the wikipedia articles he has created. Even a category! He didn't have to give us these clues - he obviously planned to be exposed right from the start. Oh, and Kww - don't worry - we have all the time in the world. Peace --TreeKittens 16:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are over 80 real papers in WoS. Most of them are ordinary polymer thermodyanmics in russian journals--no eccentricity, most of them with 10 or more citations, which isn't bad for articles published there. His magnum opus in terms of biology,
THERMODYNAMICS OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY 75 (4): 425-441 1978 , was Cited: 24 times.--and was in a reputable orthodox journal. There is some further-out stuff, but he comes across to me as a genuine minor scientist who, when he got a little out of his field, got confused. He got used by crackpots, it seems, but I dont think he really is one himself. that SC includes him in his circle is not necessarily his fault. DGG (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What DGG says is obviously true. Is there any reliable source material on which to base this WP:BLP? Or do you intend to leave it as it is? It is a BLP isn't it? Is it? I suspect that his legitimate work has been grossly misinterpreted. We should consider the possibility that it has been doctored and resubmitted. Sources please gentlemen. --TreeKittens 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no BLP considerations in a list of publications and short quotes from some of them to fairly indicate his published scientific theories. The pull quotes do of course need explicit sources--I assume this was an oversight. As he is still publishing articles on his biological work, it can be assumed he has not repudiated it. Frankly, without it, I would have said weak delete--his most cited known paper is one of the biology articles. DGG (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With lots of respect, I believe you have misinterpreted my concerns. From WP:BLP: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." (my italics.) Citation 3 is hilarious in this context. There is not a single third-party source cited in this article to substantiate any claim at all. Please tell me whether or not you regard this as acceptable. Thanks --TreeKittens 06:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the publications are verified by the very reliable third party source of Web of Science. Basic biographical facts can be taken from a persons official web page. As there is nothing contentious asserted, BLP does not apply. DGG (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute the publications, though I have no access to your source. It is possible that they differ in content from the ones that were linked to in the article. It is possible that many of the citations are by Gladyshev himself. I strongly dispute that the website is official or reliable in any way. Even if it is, it is without question not "intellectually independent" of its alleged subject. Note that there are many organisations with a similar name, and its link with the Russian Academy of Science is questionable to say the least. It also claims he has been given some awards which a websearch reveals are available for a fee. It is possible that it, and many articles which link to it including this one, have been made to discredit him and his field. The opposite may also be true. WP:BLP is highly relevant. --TreeKittens 15:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the majority of the citations of the thermodynamics of evolution paper are self-citations, according to Web of Science. --Itub 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a part of a concerted attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to push a fringe pseudoscience on Wikipedia (and it is in fact so fringe that it is not even notable as a fringe theory). Consider also adding Entropy and life for deletion. Overall, User:Sadi Carnot is an extremely problematic user whose main aim seems to be to push some very fringe, non-notable OR and present it as established, legitimate science. Agree with Kww, user should be banned, a WP:OR-pusher of the most blatant kind. -- Ekjon Lok 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, unrelated comment. I must say that I have not examined all of User:Sadi Carnot's contributions, but so many of them seem to be extremely problematic. Here's from History of heat: "What exactly constitutes energy in particle physics terms, however, is a blurry picture <...> In this view, energy is loosely defined as a spin-1 Gauge boson." What nonsense. Energy is a well-defined concept, not "blurry", nor "loosely defined". And the idea that energy (as such) can be identified with gauge bosons (i.e. photons, W and Z bosons, and gluons [which indeed carry spin 1]) is an absurdity of the most awful kind.

Something must be done about this user, he's an utter liability for this project. -- Ekjon Lok 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; despite the misattributed views by Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) for his crank theory, I still think that this scientist might be notable enough. Obviously we want to scrub the article of the fringe stuff, but he's been published enough that I would give him the "benefit of the doubt", as it were. — Coren ^(talk) 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But what are you going to say about him? I can't even find a reliable source for the man's birthplace and birthdate. I thought I had one, but then I found out it was derived from the Wikipedia article. There isn't enough material uncontaminated by User:Sadi Carnot to build an article from.Kww 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a good reference; I'm going to try my hand at fixing the article. — Coren ^(talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching his name as spelled in Cyrillic but all I could find was this one, copying material from endeav.org. —David Eppstein 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note; I've made an attempt at salvaging the article. What's left is barely more than a large stub, but it's been scrubbed free of the human chemistry taint. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your cleaning. However, to qualify for inclusion in this encyclopedia, the article must provide multiple, non-trivial, reliable references. These certainly must be
  - About the person, i.e. not just a list of the person's works in some questionable non-mainstream journals.
  - Non-trivial, i.e. they must be substantially about the person, and not just mention him in passing.
  - Reliable. A book (or chapter in a book) about this person from a mainstream publisher, or an article about him from a respected news source (such as BBC or CNN) is a reliable source. Again, the source must be substantially about this person. A mere CV or biographical blurb on some website is not enough; anyone can write a CV or a bio blurb.
  - Multiple means certainly more than two.
- If you can find these sources, insert them into the article. However, I very much doubt that you can find really good sources. My opinion ("delete") stands, for now. -- Ekjon Lok 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I forgot to add independent, i.e. independent of Gladyshev, Thims and their group; but I think this goes without saying. -- Ekjon Lok 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please bear in mind that the so-called "Academy of Creative Sciences" (whatever that may mean) [4] that is currently the only source appearing in the "References" section is neither reliable nor independent -- not by any standards. -- Ekjon Lok 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I disagree there. It's arguably not independent (because of Gladyshev's position there) but I see not indication that it is not reliable. As far as I can tell, Gladyshev is a mainstream scientist, fairly well respected in the field (if we judge by the number of cites and guest lectures he does in North American universities). I've pointed out a few on the article's talk page.
    
    Verifiability is a bit iffy— but for what little claims the article currently makes, even a primary source is sufficient. From what I could read of his work and his papers, Carnot's twisted interpretation of his work would make him livid— he falls outside my specific expertise but he's far from the fringe. — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) is... problematic to say the least. I agree we need to go over his contributions with a fine-toothed comb; but that doesn't mean everyone he mentions is automatically tainted. For all we know, Gladyshev doesn't even know he's being used by SC— I certainly can find nothing written by Gladyshev that refers to SC or his "human chemistry" nonsense. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic is such a polite word. I'm surprised that no one that wields a few of the magic admin buttons has blocked him, and I'm curious ... what is the proper venue for getting him banned?Kww 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that to be difficult. All his contributions are arguably intended as constructive (no matter how deluded he is), and I haven't seen him being uncivil or blatantly going against policy (such as recreating a deleted article repeatedly, etc). Well meaning fools is Wikipedia's greatest weakness, and unless an editor devolves to edit warring or incivility, it's actually against policy to prevent them from editing. But they tend to give up when they realize people keep going behind them cleaning up their messes. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of incivility. But it was provoked, and one could likely quote-mine similar examples from many of the rest of us. In any case, it's the fringe stuff that's a problem, not the rest of his Wikipedia behavior. —David Eppstein 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you distinguish delusion from conscious fraud? I lean towards conscious fraud in this case ... I think that assuming good faith has its limits.Kww 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hard call to make; and not one I'd try my hand at. The only way to know for sure is to read minds, I guess. It's also an irrelevant call: whether sincere or not, the cranks feel entitled to hawk their story and the net effect is the same. — Coren ^(talk) 04:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've been reading the human chemistry site (My god! What a bunch of bovine feces!) and I've seen some of Gladyshev's work referenced a few times. Every single one of those references was a complete misrepresentation of the actual papers! Whoever wrote that site is either incapable of comprehending them, or willingly lies about their topic and contents. — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coren, if Gladyshev is unaware of how Thims/Carnot is using his work on these websites then how come he cites them in what is alleged to be his work? See ref.24 of this article which I have discussed in some detail above. Please also find a reliable source on which you have based the new claims you have added to the article. Others may be interested in the old version. Our opinions about the quality of Gladyshev's work - for good or ill - are irrelevant. We may only make any such statements on the basis of third-party reliable sources per WP:NOR. None have been provided. Thanks. --TreeKittens 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a backreference. I haven't found one of those yet. Hmmm. That paper is borderline pseudoscience. Definitely speculative and none of the rigor I've seen in his earlier papers. Sigh. He wouldn't be the first scientist to fall to the dark side. — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If the original work as a physical chemist was notable, he remains notable. DGG (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me there. — Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that also in ref.24 of this article Gladyshev also allegedly references the wikipedia page Thermodynamic evolution which was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermodynamic evolution. Note that it was submitted for publication only a matter of days after that article was nominated for deletion nearly three years ago. Only a few days later, User:Sadi Carnot made his very first wikipedia edit. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage. An apparent copy of the page can be found here. It references Thims (different book though) and Gladyshev and their websites is in a very familiar style. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2. I have no doubt there is much, much more. I now support the imposition of an indefinite ban. Centralised discussion of this entire house of cards is needed. God knows what this is about. I need help! More later. See also Wp:bio#Basic_criteria ;-) Thanks --TreeKittens 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At last: Glad to see that I didn't have to wait for the heat death of the universe to get someone to agree that he is deserving of a ban. I'll ask again ... what is the proper forum to discuss banning him?Kww 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After all this debate and all our searching and despite his long publication record the evidence for his mainstream scientific notability is still weak at best. And as long as this article exists here on Wikipedia it will likely continue to be a WP:COATRACK for this unscientific nonsense. —David Eppstein 15:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Obviously User:Wavesmikey and User:Sadi Carnot are one and the same. [5] --TreeKittens 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case. A little investigation reveals that Thims (as User:Wavesmikey also created these articles in 2005: equilibrium thermodynamics, biological thermodynamics, exact differential, thermodynamic evolution and quasistatic equilibrium. As you can see, "thermodynamic evolution" got deleted as OR and "quasistatic equilibrium" narrowly survived an AfD for the same reason. On the other hand, the other articles seem bona fide. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think AfD is the proper forum for discussing blocking a user. I suggest you look at WP:DR (probably at WP:RFC) if that's what you want (although I don't think there's any blockable offense). --Itub 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I now notice that many of the quoted testimonials on one of Thims/Carnot/Waves' websites - supposedly about his "book" - are actually quotations of comments by Wikipedia editors, made in the AfD debate of the eponymous article! (Link). Any bets the account was created on 1st April? I suspect there's an even older article which is no longer in the deletion log. Oh dear. Oh dear... --TreeKittens 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed some information that may be relevant to this discussion. Or perhaps not. I could use some advice. email to [email protected] will do. Keith Henson 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; I've been snookered. I figured out one independent verifiable fact on that person's CV, and it turns out to be completely false. I would treat anything from someone who lies about receiving a major award suspect; and therefore we're down to zero sources. Meh; I should have looked the list of winners first— I knew this was a prestigious award, it didn't occur to me someone could be bold enough to lie about getting it! — Coren ^(talk) 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It also doesn't lend confidence that the rest of the awards he lists are from the International Biographical Centre, a notorious vanity scammer. —David Eppstein 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, I don't think his CV is saying that he won the ACS Gibbs Medal. It's quite likely that's he is not even an ACS member. Gibbs is famous enough that more than one organization may have instituted a medal in his name. The way I read his CV, the medal was awarded by no other than... the International Academy of Creative Endeavors! (See [6]) --Itub 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Caution. We are being manipulated. We should be careful what we say as we cannot be sure of anything right now. We don't know whois pulling the strings, or for what purpose. Note that "Libb Thims" also claims an "award" from this "institute" (link). This is precisely why we need to rely on reliable secondary sources, but I suspect wikipedia is only a small part of this. --TreeKittens 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  At this point, I would strong recommend deleting the entire walled garden as suspect. If anything in there was genuinely notable, someone else can put it back. — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I am inclined to agree. However, one of the problems I have found in looking through this dark glass is that most of the clues have been deleted. I would suggest moving them all out of the article space for further analysis. I would be interested to read some of the deleted articles. It would be hugely inefficient to go through each of these references to check them. There would surely be some collateral damage, but I think it would be worth it. --TreeKittens 16:41, 19 October 2007 (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.