Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Chislenko

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chislenko

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

Nonnotable "transhumanist". Staszek Lem (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - there's nothing here, no basis for a bio article, skimpy passing-mention references - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some links at News, Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's clear from the many references to his work in Google books (from academic press books and frequently referring to his being a pioneer on a topic), that he's significant. For verifiability there's a short biography in Wiley's Transhumanist Reader [1] with year of birth and death and such. There's a number of available newspaper articles that fill out other biographical details, like that he worked at the MIT Media Lab.--Jahaza (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says nothing about google books. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - His work is referenced in Google Books. He didn't work on Google Books. The point is that the citations needed to substantiate the article exist, they don't need to be in the article already.--Jahaza (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even worse. Hits in google search prove nothing. What we need is references to reliable sources. Google books hit lots of self-published garbage. "Transhumanists" produce floods of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say anything about "hits" I said references, because I looked at the results and found that they're not "self-published garbage".

As I already pointed out, his work is included as "classic" an anthology of texts on transhumanism from John Wiley & Sons [2].

A chapter in a book from Springer Science calls him "Among the earliest writers on the potential of collectives in education..."[3]

A book on the theory of humor from MIT Press says he "may have been the first to describe jokes in terms of super-normal stimuli."[4]

A book from SAGE Publications cites his "cyborgization theory of 'legacy systems'"[5]

He did early work on Semantic Web which is cited in a variety of places[6][7][8]

And we can go on and on about non-self published sources[9][10][][11][12][13][14]

It's not a vast record, but it's a substantive one and he's clearly had an impact in his field.--Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are milllions of scientists cross-cited by other scientists.I question existence of substantial coverage in independent reliable publications. Fro your list, SAGE is well-known for lack of rigorous peer review. researchgate is selfpublishing portal. "classic" anthology ow Wiley gives a minuscule blurb about an author of the published assay, and so on. Therefore notability per wikipedia standards is not established. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK first, he doesn't have to get "substantial coverage in independent reliable publications" that's the WP:GNG, but he only needs to meet WP:NACADEMICS. I argue that he meets #1 based on pioneering work on concepts including the semantic web and the study of the internet in general. I present reliable sources attesting to his origination concepts in his field.

Your arguments are frustratingly tendentious and you repeatedly move the goal posts. You don't apply the proper notability guideline, you dismiss information about sources as self-published without actually looking at them, when presented with a variety of peer reviewed sources you complain that the publisher of some of them has a bad reputation (but ignore that it's only a portion of the sources), and you attack an article reproduced on researchgate as "self-published" despite its having been published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [15].--Jahaza (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving goal posts. I am responding to new text you typed in. My goal post is one and single: lack of notablity per wikipedia rules: no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I superficially dismissed researchgate, my bad, because you provided this link. Now, looking into the text, I see a short blurb of what he suggested, but his impact is unclear. Now, about your argument per "pioneering work". It is one thing to write "Democritus suggested this-or-that long way before Einstein". It is complete another thing to write that a dont-know-who thought of iphones ways before Apple. Again, either significant coverage or write the decent bio, so that it can be judged on its merits, even if stitched from bits and pieces. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Your goal is based on a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia rules". It is not necessary for there to be "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" for an article on an academic, because as the guideline says, "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline ... is irrelevant." Your second suggestion "or write the decent bio, so that it can be judged on its merits" is also irrelevant, since what we're looking for here is whether the sources exist to show that the article is verifiable and meets a relevant notability guideline, not whether the article is "decent" or well sourced already.--Jahaza (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I replied to your #1 NACADEMIC as well. I was more focused on GNG because in my mind he was not even close to NACADEMIC. BTW you misinterpret #1 NACADEMIC; "pioneering" is not in the criterion. It says: "made significant impact ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Which is basically the same as "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" from GNG (if a source simply says "he was the best" without reasonable argument, then I don't think it is sufficient evidence). - And I disagree that sources demonstrated the "significant impact" part. And that's why "write article" is relevant. "Sources exist" which simply mention is name or work is an irrelevant fact. Sources must "demonstrate the impact". If you can demonstrate the impact in this chat, then why don't you put this demonstration right into the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) for help explaining WP:PROF to nominator Staszek Lem (talk · contribs), even though DGG may not agree with my assessment.--Jahaza (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) please help explaining to Jahaza that merely listing a bunch of weblinks cannot "demonstrate significant impact" if somebody contests your claim. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both of you, I will gladly look at anything, but don't guide me to what to want me to say. I prefer to look at the article free from preconceptions and independently of any prior comments. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine was just stupid "tu qouque" thingy, you may forget it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only thing that looks like a claim of academic notability is that he acquired a patent in 2000 on a concept (collaborative filtering) already patented by Hey in 1989. One can find reliable independent sources for this statement [16] but I don't think they provide enough in-depth coverage of the subject to confer notability. On the other hand there is in-depth coverage of his transhumanist work in "The Path to Posthumanity" (Academica Press 2006) but I'm not convinced that it's enough for general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability by WP:PROF depends upon being recognized as an expert or having made a major contribution -- the other requirements in that section are essentially equivalents to these. In technology, this is normally evidenced by citations to a persons papers, or, in some cases, their patents. Here it depends upon the citations to the two very closely related patents US6041311 and US6092049. The citations are high, but so are other citations in the area. Chislenko is one of three co-inventors listed--the other two have substantial independent citation records--Chislenko does not. I see no evidence that he was the more significant of the three or the lede investigator. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 27 February 2016 (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.