Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariya Rusalenko

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Rusalenko[edit]

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

Mariya Rusalenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal citation counts, deputy director, don't see how meets WP:NPROF. Wrote a book in 2023, but insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Don't think meets WP:GNG from other coverage either. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetam, may be ur right, we may add those sources like maxim too and book too.
  • Delete. Not seeing the citations for NPROF C1, nor the secondary coverage for GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoelleJay,
I would respectfully like your comments on her on other criteria.
NPROF C6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Deputy Director of Republican Research Center for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology, build for post Chernobyl Research. The highest Authority on that research authority in Belarus and Russia and the region. Also on the scientific editorial board of the institution.
NPROF C7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
One of her books (hormones and preserving youth) is endorsed by the president of the United nations General Assembly for the contribution to the community. She is also Assigned as the Director General of Belarus Maldives Cultural center. Her work on IVF and endocrinology is documentation in Belarus media.
Being recognized by the minister of state of Health of another country and the President of UNGA is not something an ordinary scholar can achieve. Also, most researches done in Russian languages are not properly indexed in google.
NPROF C1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
I cannot fully agree on this part since, her academic achievements has led for the recognition under C7. And its covered significantly, locally and internationally. Existence Leesaaisath 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF C2:
  1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
here is another link on December 6th of recognition. https://mvdoctors.org/press-release-1/
I ask all the editor colleagues to participate and to look in to local literature and do research and help in developing these works. We need support of all to make wiki better.
As I have started researching, I myself is seeing more and more material on this page. Every article has to abide by wiki rules, and we shall all enforce it, and at the same time we shall work to appreciate and treat with respect and fairness to all articles as much as possible. Existence Leesaaisath 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C6: Deputy Director is not the highest post of the institution, and anyway that is not a notable independent research institute so even its director would not qualify.
C7: Belonging to various government committees and receiving recognition from international bodies are not enough to qualify (else everyone who worked on UN subcommittees would be notable).
C1: For her field, this would require thousands of citations by other academics, in peer-reviewed academic literature.
C2: I see no evidence she has received an award equivalent to, e.g., a Guggenheim Fellowship. JoelleJay (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C6: The Chernobyl incident and the organization she belongs that was made to investigate it and heading its research is not significant than, I guess we have redefined very guidelines as we wish to interpret.I have visited the website and seen their history in Russian/English. Also, if you listen to the the live interview you can understand the research they are doing on cancer research with US and the countries. I think we need to focus on countries as a whole and not on western and English media alone. I have an article on Dr. Ali Niyaf here, had not seen these criterias mentioned this way. He has less scope than this individual we discuss here.
C7: Recognized by the President of UNGA, and Minister of state of health of another country, for the work and recognized by the a biggest doctors body in another country; if that is not credible, then I really do not understand how the guidelines apply.
C2: I don't think only EU or US or their societies recognition can be a norm since, there is various sanctions on individuals and countries these people are born to and these countries have it own standards and classifications.
C1: I dont think its only one criteria we should look on on that angle. And also I believe we need to look to think balanced.
My explanations are purely not based on this article, its my understanding to interpret the right and balanced way regardless of which language the persons are represented and valued, thus I respectfully note these & I thank you JoelleJay for the contribution to this discussion. Lets investigate deep and find more. Existence Leesaaisath 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her research can be highly important and impactful and still not make her notable. The notability requirements for a page are there partly because they allow us to write a comprehensive, neutral article on the person, which means independent secondary sources providing significant coverage are crucial. The websites of people/organizations someone is affiliated with (including those awarding the person or publishing official recognition) are not independent, interviews are primary and not independent, the person's own publications and quotations in media are not independent, and brief descriptions of the person by independent secondary media outlets are not significant enough. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JoelleJay,
Thank you for noting that out. That is what I am trying to explain. Notability is via many sources and its can been in many articles in russian, english and also in Maldivian, most are independent also state media sources of the country if you research on them in Belarus. I dont think we can have a bling eye on it. Also its not one media outlet. Its cross country and major media sources.
Also, regarding notability I have thoroughly explained and highlighted above with Wiki why she fits certain criterias as explained in the criterias of Wikipedia. I cannot agree on the fact a person is notable by a highlight on specific organizations alone or specific news sources as you have mentioned, but a mix of reliable secondary sources. Also we should not focus on interviews since, in my research alone I have found news sources on her.
In retrospect her work is published in oxford too among many I have come across. We can work with one angle, but why? shall we decredit state organizations and international organizations and define the criteria otherwise to state as non notable.
And if the criteria definition you have detailed is put in place like 1000's of citations, then we will shun and many contributors to science in these countries unfairly deemed non notable for Wikipedia and will show a deficit in the presence of Wikipedia in its own right in these regions. That is why I put in place Ali niyaf as an example. If a person lives in Maldives will understand the magnitude of notability on him and in fits the criteria listed, but as per your explanation his article needs to be removed too.
As I have mentioned we are looking to develop wiki, and looking not only to one scope or a professor, but in general too on notability. I welcome to please read more an investigate to help develop our thoughts here. I am delighted to give few hours of my time in it.
We may not be able to fathom certain media coverage due to language barriers we have. This is something I have been advocating from the start. Existence Leesaaisath 13:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget this page is only to discuss the notability of Mariya Rusalenko with respect to the guidelines and policies. This isn't an appropriate forum to discuss revising notability guidelines (would be better going to the talk pages of the guidelines themselves). -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Respect -Kj cheetham, developing wiki is not about changing guidelines (should not be). I mentioned it in reference to populating it with articles as per the guidelines of wiki. Also, with examples in articles I have created, I am asking that, the guidelines define what is notable and not notable and we have no right to add extra rules or remove extra rules with various interpretations.
I have argued with respected to editors here for explanation and links and also example of other approved articles. I did so, since countries like Belarus, khazakstan, or Romania, Maldives, these are countries with very deep language and media, and we have to look deep to the local sources, organizations to as the guideline say to define notability. In western only sources doesnt define them fairly.
That is why I have put Dr. Ali Niyaf, who i made an article which is approved. Why it was approved as per current definitions by some authors here?
And now lets imagine, are we to remove it: its one of the most famous individuals in the country. Anyways, lets look more on these. I hope this discussion will assist more on making a better understanding and making wiki contributions a pleasant work.
I urge all to look positive in adding your ideas and thoughts, and create arguments with facts and examples possible. Existence Leesaaisath 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& Kj cheetham Thanks for pointing them out. I was once advised by Timothy to not use links of Tabloids. Now I know I remember, thanks User:I'm tla for noting it out Existence Leesaaisath 16:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly notable researcher with quite a few publications on topics such as the Chernobyl radiation fallout. Stellarnelson (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Stellarnelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Maxim and USA Today source is sponsored. Stellarnelson is likely a WP:SPA. TLA (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove those links from consideration. I dont think we need to weigh on those links for this person on this article. I have previously been skeptical on it and didnt add them. Article doesnt have them anymore. Existence Leesaaisath 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from more editors needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nominator and non-author/SPA editors who have evaluated the article and sources have come to the correct conclusion: the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC. Jfire (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the contribution. Please kindly explain the GNG criterias how the article does not meet it. It will be useful. Also please search the person in native language (Russian). Here is the link.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&sca_esv=599294221&biw=1366&bih=610&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Inj7SU3-e2k7MRUAx2_LTvNSy9A%3A1705536996023&ei=5G2oZZ6IAde8xc8PzuUc&ved=0ahUKEwieirK21OWDAxVXXvEDHc4yBwAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHdCc0LDRgNC40Y8g0KDRg9GB0LDQu9C10L3QutC-MgwQIxiABBiKBRgTGCcyCBAAGBYYHhgTSKYEUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZsBoAGbAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1
    As I have explained above, with the local language search please weigh on guidelines. Also give me your ideas on why Ali Niyaf and Mariya Rusalenko has difference in meeting Guidelines. I want to respectfully highlight this with all our colleagues here on the importance of understanding local languages in this process. It can really hinder our judgement and fairness in enforcing guidelines of Wiki Existence Leesaaisath 00:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leesaaisath, you might want to be careful not to WP:BADGER people on here, especially to repeat things you've already said. Also when referring to Ali Niyaf, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tends not to be a good argument at AfD. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Kj cheetham,
    This discussion is focused to learn. Lets not divert it in a wrong way. I have mentioned all our collaborators with respect and dignity, since many have contributed here for years.
    I too take a lot of time to read the guidelines and develop my skills, and focus to contribute from spheres I am familiar with. I have with enthusiasm tried to explain as many times as possible some issues, we face and weighing Articles in various regions and languages.
    I have created the article for Ali Niyaf too, the point is all are under one guideline and I dont see any issue to example here to our colleagues to explain the challenges we have, since are arguments to learn for me and others and should be fact based.
    Also, I want to highlight that, we as editors with lack of knowledge of certain languages on where the article subjects are native from, may not be the best weighing certain articles. This is why I have asked for an explanation and helped with a link to have a look. As an editor I see them and since it has much more than other articles I have published here, I ask politely for explanations from editors. Its important to discuss these things so our work will be better and and things be more clear. Without proper justification and facts if decisions keep on made, it will demotivate the new editors to learn more and contribute. (I give my energy here this much since I genuinely want to contribute to wiki)
    When you look into the Russian name search for the article source, its a different world and we need Russian editors to participate to give their views. I wish all to Think to develop the work here (not only this article), and lets find more ways to contribute to every article here, its what Afd page instructs us. Existence Leesaaisath 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Just because sources are sponsored doesn't mean they can't be used at all (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), just they don't add to the notability case. Use of Amazon links is more like advertising though (WP:AMAZON). -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kj Cheetham,
    You are right, I will edit as advised that can counter any rules. That is something new I have learned. Thanks Kj Cheetham Existence Leesaaisath 00:21, 18 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mariya_Rusalenko&oldid=1198140347"