Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubnovskyy Sergey

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubnovskyy Sergey[edit]

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

No evidence of anything satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Novangelis (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Novangelis (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming good faith edits, wouldn't developing a new method for non-surgical treatment of a vertebral compression fractures be part of a recipe for notability especially when coupled with 10 patents? I don't know how to do citation scores, but with over 50 scientific papers primarily in sports medicine he must have a few hits. For starters, according to Google Scholar, not the best citator service especially for Russian language materials, his (collaborative) "Поясничные боли" ("Back Pain") has been cited 16 times and his "Руководство по кинезитерапии дорсопатий и грыж позвоночника" "Guide to kinesitherapy dorsopathy and spinal herniation" has been cited six times. I found citations to his works not just by Russian authors, but also Romanian; there are probably others. Note, when looking for sources, that his Russian surname is often transliterated into Roman characters as "Bubnovsky" with a single "y". See, for example, "Spotlight: Taking pills: cause or cure?". TV-Novosti. 4 July 2008.. As a practicing doctor he should not just be compared to other academics, but may qualify under the general notability guidelines as well. He does have coverage both in English text and in Russian. The only question remaining on notability is significance. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those citation counts are way below our requirements for a pass of WP:PROF criterion 1. Many hundreds of citations are usually required. And patents are meaningless unless independent reliable sources have written about them. Many people have patented perpetual motion machines. I've renamed the article to "Sergey Bubnovskiy" to correct the name order and use a more standard transliteration of the surname, but many different spellings are possible in the Roman alphabet, especially when the transliteration is to a language other than English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the transliteration correction and for renaming. Fully agree Kinedw (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If his work has not managed to penetrate the English literature I doubt it has achieved a significant impact. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The language of potential sources is irrelevant to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was not the reason I voted delete. In this case, the fact that there seem no English-language sources mean that this person's notability is quite possibly not that great. All major health phenomena from other countries are eventually discussed in English-language publications, particularly in the fields of science and health. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved reflist with German, Spanish and English citations. And set one more Category - Alternative medecine. Kinedw (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Kinedw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate cites. Patents are self-published and count for little. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both for lack of evidence of passing the notability criteria for academics and for lack of the independent reliable sourcing on the subject that we would need to neutrally assess his significance and to write a verifiable article about him. In addition, the promotional tone of the existing article is a problem, likely caused by its reliance on sources affiliated with the subject rather than independent ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (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.