Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatole Klyosov

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. Nomination withdrawn without any "delete" !votes. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Klyosov[edit]

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

Fails the science/academic related notability guidelines. Of available sourcing and claimed achievements:

"he is featured in "Who's Who in America", 55th Edition, 2001, Volume 1 (A-K), p. 2882, and subsequent editions; 2009, Vol. 1, p. 2693), and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering", 6th Edition, 2002-2003, p. 506, and subsequent editions) and in "Who's Who in the World", 19th Edition, 2002, p. 1136" - many of the non-canonical "Who's Who" books are paid subscription based;
His journal publications seem to be through SCIRP, who I can personally vouch for as both an OA mill (they're regularly highlighted as a poor example of OA, and answer to a PO box in Delaware) and pretty skeezy when it comes to soliciting works (I've been pestered incessantly by them since I published my first ACM-reviewed paper. If you're reading this, SCIRP, hi! Leave me alone? ;p)
Of the published books, the first (wood-plastic composites) appears legitimate, although it doesn't seem to have got any press or attention that would make it a hook to hang notability from. The rest are books he was the editor of, rather than the author of, and largely consist of conference proceedings.

Note that I'm unable to identify the Russian-language works, so there may be something here, but the vibe I'm getting is an attempt to insert notability where there is none. Hopefully the rest of you agree ;p Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is a mess but that's not cause for deletion. The books on their own do not ensure notability, though perhaps Russian language reviews of them might do so. I note that the Russian Wikipedia article is much more detailed, so it may be that there is usable evidence there. How did he get to edit all those conference proceedings? - it suggests he's a well-known figure over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

klyosov is a top scientist in his field, he bcame millionare from his chemical discoveries in the USA. his articles are in top russian scientist journals, where russia obviously is one of the most advanced nations in science in all fields if not surpassing most other countries. their scientific journals, discoveries colleges even if not acknowledged in the west to just to protect western medical discoveries/medicines etc, does not lessen russian contribution to science, unless if you want to transform wiki to just the anglosaxons knowledge encyclopedia with scientific research not mentioned in Pub Med such as most the world scientific discoveries in ancient times like Avicenna etc making this request for deletion a hate/discrimination gesture. Klyosov chemical doscoveries made in the us in the english language of which he became millionaire, and other studies he done are also in english and his findings are extensively resourced by other academia etcViibird (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is "there's a vast discriminatory conspiracy against Russia" you may want to try harder. Can you please point us to the reliance by others on his work? Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible, but so is this very misleading nomination. Google Scholar shows that Klyosov's publications are in fact with Biochemistry (journal), Analytical Biochemistry, Glycobiology (journal), Enzyme and Microbial Technology, John Wiley & Sons, and other mainstream publishers. His h-index is a little weak (but still passes WP:PROF#C1, I think, with 238 citations for his top paper, and noting that there are Russian-language publication not on Google Scholar), and his extensive industrial work (referred to in sources such as New Scientist) may also pass WP:PROF#C7. -- 101.119.15.17 (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome; I'll withdraw the nomination. Any chance you can provide specific URLs? that way I can rewrite the article to discuss him as an industrial scientist rather than emphasising the, ah, "theories" of genetics he's responsible for. Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Russian wikipedia article claims a win of the USSR State Prize, which would pass WP:PROF#C2, but I cannot verify this. Apparently there has also been controversy within Russia concerning his genetic theories. -- 101.119.15.17 (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2013 (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.