Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pyshnov

: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. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Michael Pyshnov]]=

:{{la|Michael Pyshnov}} ([{{fullurl:Michael Pyshnov|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pyshnov}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

rather definitively non-notable, no reliable sources - apparently his academic career never took off because of a dispute with his PhD supervisor Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment He may be notable, although most likely not notable under WP:PROF. See here: http://ca.geocities.com/UofTfraud/. Depending on how much trouble he has stirred up over the past 25 years, he might be notable under some other category. Crieff (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteSee also: http://www.famousplagiarists.com/scienceandmedicine.htm#larsen. I imagine this would all be very hard to sort out, and from what I see it looks more like a squabble that, while very serious for Pyshnov, is not very serious or notable to the broader community (rightly or wrongly). If there were some significant media references to the debate or if there were some reasonably serious academic consequences for the subject's former supervisor, that might make the case notable. But most references to the controversy online are authored by Pyshnov, who himself acknowledges that has been no singificant media uptake of the story (http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=a25b7ce5-a1bf-48ba-8acf-352caa6226b2). Crieff (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject is not notable as an academic. As far as I can tell, he published (almost) nothing and there do not to be appear any citations of his scientific work in academic publications, let alone wide citability, as required by WP:PROF. In terms of general notability under WP:BIO, coverage by reliable sources is also very scarce. GoogleNews does give one hit[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=pn&q=%22Michael+Pyshnov%22] that mentions him, but it is in fact an opinion piece by Pyshnov himself, rather than an article about him by an independent source. Seems to be a bit of a WP:BLP1E case as well, since such notability as there appears to come from the plagiarism allegations. There are also serious general WP:BLP concerns here. Without multiple solid independent reliable sources, a nasty personal conflict like that should not be covered per WP:BLP guidance even in the context of an article on a larger subject. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.