| Revision as of 08:11, 12 October 2007 editTree Kittens (talk | contribs)518 edits →Georgi Gladyshev: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:47, 12 October 2007 edit undoKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Georgi Gladyshev: Delete, salt, ban authorNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| **Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as ], it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —] 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | **Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as ], it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —] 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***I agree - ''if'' there is any significant commentary or analysis of this person or his work, attributed to independent reliable sources, then it should clearly be kept whether it is described as fringe or otherwise. I do not believe this is, as yet, the case. At the moment this article is entirely composed of original research based on primary sources which we amateurs are incapable of assessing. I also think that its creator cannot be trusted to have paraphrased these sources honestly. --] 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | ***I agree - ''if'' there is any significant commentary or analysis of this person or his work, attributed to independent reliable sources, then it should clearly be kept whether it is described as fringe or otherwise. I do not believe this is, as yet, the case. At the moment this article is entirely composed of original research based on primary sources which we amateurs are incapable of assessing. I also think that its creator cannot be trusted to have paraphrased these sources honestly. --] 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete and salt and ban author''': Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by ]. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Misplaced Pages editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author.] 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:47, 12 October 2007
Georgi Gladyshev
- Georgi Gladyshev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I can find no evidence of significant third-party commentary on this person's life, nor any significant analysis of his work in reliable sources independent of the subject. I suggest that this article should be deleted. Thanks. TreeKittens 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep; this article should probably gaged against WP:PROF, and we have to make some allocation to the information void that would necessarily have been caused by the iron curtain. — Coren 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see no verification that this person passes WP:PROF. Note that most of the article is an analysis of his work based entirely on primary sources, most published in a journal which charges a fee for publication (link). For example this article cites Lib Thims (who is User:Sadi Carnot) and his self-published work (ref.24) for some interesting claims. The references throughout these websites, articles and wikipedia pages are so self-referential and bizarre that I suspect we are being toyed with. Or educated. See also WP:BLP. Thanks --TreeKittens 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It doesn't really address the lack of third-party evaluation, but here are some independent lists of some of his publications: . There is at least one book review here. He really does seem to be a published academic, but whether he passes WP:PROF is a different question. —David Eppstein 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Am I mad? I don't doubt that he is a real, published, academic. This is just very strange: Journal of Human Thermodynamics is run by Lib Thims/User:Sadi Carnot who wrote this article. It (self) publishes the work of Gladyshev, Thims and Shu-Kun Lin, who cite each other. That's fine. Probably. Most of the sources in this article are published in IJMS which is published by... Shu-Kun Lin. He says it's difficult to pay for in this post. He is answered by... Jimbo Wales who responds: "What do you mean? What are the costs? Can I help?" here I don't know what all this means really - but I think someone is trying to tell us something. I wish he'd just say it. More clues at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. Forgive me if I'm bonkers - I feel I had to say it. Click around a bit... Also, no sources per WP:N ;-) --TreeKittens 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as WP:FRINGE, it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —David Eppstein 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - if there is any significant commentary or analysis of this person or his work, attributed to independent reliable sources, then it should clearly be kept whether it is described as fringe or otherwise. I do not believe this is, as yet, the case. At the moment this article is entirely composed of original research based on primary sources which we amateurs are incapable of assessing. I also think that its creator cannot be trusted to have paraphrased these sources honestly. --TreeKittens 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment on the other AfD, "I think the walled garden of which Earle Martin speaks is not limited to wikipedia," seems very cogent. If there is reliable sourcing that other academics think of this area as WP:FRINGE, it seems to have been excluded from our articles here, and if so that's a problem. But if this is a significant fringe industry in academia, shouldn't we include it? After all it's not our task to set the trend of academic inquiry, only to report on it. BTW, I read the book review that I linked to above; it's hyperbolic in its praise of Gladyshev and his work, to the point where it loses credibility with me. —David Eppstein 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by User:Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Misplaced Pages editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author.Kww 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)