Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG when one considers that CESNUR is neither a reliable source nor independent of Maltsev. There are brief mentions of his degree on a government website, two reviews of a martial arts book that make brief mention of him, but that's it. (Additionally, the article was created by an editor with an apparent COI suggesting they are from CESNUR, here to engage in widespread promotion of that group's materials.) Feoffer (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article has already been submitted twice for deletion by the same argumentation.124Sanroque (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was rightly closed by a non-admin as intentionally disruptive after its nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. Also looks like that discussion wasn't correctly listed, at least not at first. The "second nomination" was really just a contested close by a user unfamiliar with non-admin closure.

When a COI is exposed, it makes sense to revisit these issues. I don't think this article would exist if CESNUR didn't send someone here to create it in service of promoting the subject, and I don't think there's enough to write an article without the CESNUR-published articles.

No prejudice against the subject whatsoever, I'd be quite happy to be corrected in the form of RSes with which to forge a good article. Feoffer (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that CESNUR is an authoritative source is easily any unbiased author can be check. Here are dozens of reputable sources, printed books that confirm the authority of CESNUR. But besides Cesnur magazine, the article included other sources that have been deleted. I understand that some sources were primary related to the subject of the article, so they could cause displeasure for a number of participants. But also removed a large number of independent authoritative sources.

National Geographic 1

National Geographic 2

There are still sources of authoritative magazines:

Sport Illustrated

The Ring

As for your remark that CESNUR is affiliated with Maltsev, it sounds absurd. The Maltsev's group was the subject of CESNUR research. With this logic, we can assume that a microbiologist is affiliated on bacteria.124Sanroque (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, I've added some of them to the article already.

Most of the sources seem to be passing references (but still useful! thanks again!). The Sports Illustrated piece is a full review of Maltov's book Non-compromised Pendulum! (that book already has its own article, we could always merge the biographical material into that article if the powers that be decide we don't have enough to do justice to a bio).

We shall have to disagree on CESNUR; my understanding of past archives is that longstanding wikipedia precedent (far predating me) has held CESNUR is not considered a RS. A well-sourced criticism of CESNUR is that its scholars lack sufficient independence from it subjects. Feoffer (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your main point, as I understand it, is that CESNUR is not RS. This is your POV. I do not see problems with RS. I looked at the article in Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are a significant number of sources there, which were not used in the English Wikipedia. Apparently some of them are affiliated. It will take some time to select the sources that can be used and are not affiliated with CESNUR. Moreover, I think we can find other sources if we will work with Google Search.124Sanroque (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found more additional reliable sources: Interfax(Interfax), tureligious.com.ua, allboxing, WBN, telegraf, Nächste Stufe 124Sanroque (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer Why did you delete Reliable sources? Among the remote sources is the Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated. This is very similar to what was done with this article in the first and second nominations for deletion.124Sanroque (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a super-quick cleanup to remove the promotional tone / COI issues, but Ring & SI are definitely RSes. In any case, cleanups shouldn't have any effect on this deletion discussion -- my understanding is that deletion discussions are NOT about the current version of the article at all, they're about the idea of Wikipedia having an article about the given subject. Feoffer (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Reliable sources for no reason at all during the discussion of deleting the article. Such removing is not consensus. You say that you removed the promotional tone/COI issues, but you left the {{COI}} template.124Sanroque (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ring and SI are still being used in the article, they weren't removed at all.

COI tag is just up pending deletion discussion resolution. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. 124Sanroque (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 124Sanroque (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has not yet received enough input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a number of independent reliable sources that sufficiently describe the subject of the article [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Yakudza (talk) 03:29, 2 December 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.