Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Mayboroda


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Mayboroda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I removed a Prod based on comments on the article talk page. Original Prod reasoning was:


 * "No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either (see the Talk page). The article claims he has held various university and management positions but provides no references, and in any case these would probably be insufficient to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS"

I currently have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. GB fan please review my editing 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per my earlier prod. It's worth noting that the author has been pushing the fringe technology that makes up the bulk of this article - see also Articles for deletion/Accumulating Space Device (ASD) andy (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. I don't see much salvageable material here.  Perhaps he'd be safer in the Russian-language WP?  Several Times (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

KeepDear Editors. I am writing to you because of your false, based on nothing, accusations regarding the following: 1) "No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either" this is not substantial for a number of reasons First of all, I have provided the article with various reliable and veryfiable sources: 1) "Техника-молодежи» 1984 №5, с.30-35 -"Technical youth" 1984 2) "Техника-молодежи» 2011 №7,Безракетный космос. Ну, почти безракетный... В новых орбитальных и межпланетных транспортных системах ракеты будут играть роль второго плана -"Technical youth" 2011 W. Meylitsev. Non-rocket space. Well, almost non-rocket… . 3) I dont UNDERSTAND WHAT is THE PROBLEM WITH the offical state and interstate web-sites I have included. WHAT IS WRONG? I mean web-sites like www1.fips.ru and http://wipo.int/portal/index.html.en 4) I have added a new reference about Mayboroda's political position and how he was once a candidate for a deputy in State Duma. It is a russian source but the wiki rules say that sources should not neccesarily be in english. Please, check this out as well I am gonna add another reliable and verifiable sources to this article. But i feel like i am being accused of creating some rubbish wiki articles in advance without even careful reading and checking which is not acceptable and which is going to have some consequences for the offenders.      As for the accusation that this article is an original research it is a sheer illusion and misunderstanding. All information that is included in this article had been published in various sources (including WIPO AND FIPS WEB_SITES, TECHNIKA MOLODEZI, various hard sources and journals etc etc) SO HOW IS IT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH IF I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS SOURCES BEFORE. Another thing is


 * Keep English secondary and tertiary sources may in fact be limited, though Demetriades and the young technician refs from Bolonkin is enough of a mention for me to accept as a keep via secondaries/tertiaries. It is true that the article may need cutting down somewhat, there are a fair amount of refs to the Mayboroda.com site which may need some serious discussion. There is a reference here to the entry in Young Technician No. 10 as well as Bolonkin using his article in two or more publications Space towers and New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects. The patent is at this location in WIPO. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this. The first reference is merely a citation and the next two don't mention him at all. Moreover New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects cites wikipedia as a source! None of this is remotely close to WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That he quotes Wikipedia as a source does not affect the issue that he also quotes Mayboroda as one. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is so, so far from WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is? The book I mentioned is an RS, and it plus the two additionals were being used to show that the article from the magazine was mentioned elsewhere (as you can clearly see from my statement above). Is it your contention that the book published by Elsevier fails RS in some way? If you simply want the last word, then fine, but so far you have not persuaded me that this should be deleted and it is unlikely that you will. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The book does not discuss Alexander Mayboroda at all, and hence does not help for WP:BIO. It does cite one of Mayboroda's articles, but many, many citations are needed to meet WP:PROF. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating the obvious, I did say that this was not to prove anything other than the article had been used as a source in a published book. That is simply it. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In other words, it's an RS, but not one contributing to notability for this article. Ditto the Demetriades article -- it's probably an RS but, being written when the subject was 5 years old, not relevant to notability. In fact, I can't see any sources that are (1) reliable, (2) independent, and (3) contributing to notability under WP:BIO or WP:PROF. -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Dear Sir Chaosdruid, I totally agree with you regarding your remarks about the neccessety to cut down the article in order to improve it. I will do so with your help. Just wait for a while until we get it right. I 'll put up more references. And we can talk about mayboroda.com as well. I'd really like to know how i can use some of the animated pictures that are available at mayboroda.com and that are very relevant in terms of their support to his patented inventions. These animated pictures clarify a lot about his theoretical inventions. thanks a lot for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Hello Andy!!! First, thanks very much for telling me that I should sign what I say. I will try my best to put it into practice. ALthough it may take some time until i figure out how it actually works (please, dont forget that i am very new to it).
 * Delete. No evidence of notability (meets neither WP:BIO or WP:PROF); no mention of the subject's name in independent, reliable sources. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am also concerned about all the images in the article, which appear to be taken from mayboroda.com and other web sites. This in turn suggests either (1) massive copyvio, or (2) that the author of the article is in fact Alexander Mayboroda, which would be massive COI. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. The statement "... which is going to have some consequences for the offenders" above appears to constitute WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As for my statement " ...which is going to have some consequences ..." i find it so amazing ..how we can interprete things since it does not refer to legal consequences of any sort whatsoever. To clarify, that statement is referred to the phrases related to my another article and which are (1) "apparently feasible, if somewhat dodgy, proposed technology that is referred to in Alexander Mayboroda" and "wild speculations" posted by Andy Smith. And this was a warm, welcoming word to a new user which is ME. I wrote that it's actually offensive (offensive not in a legal sense but in moral and human) to call patented (registred) inventions wild speculations and dodgy technologies which shows the level of "education" of the author of these words (especially taking into account that the author is an actual Wiki editor) and which is going to be complained about sooner or later at the administrators' of Wikipedia page. I am very sorry if it was taken in any other way / it is not my fault. any language is imperfect. so it is neither WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE but WP:INEVITABILITY

As for the copyrights violation and the so-called WP:COI|COI statements they are not evidenced or substantial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC) They are not substantial because they are actually against what the copyvio page says (Dear editors please, read the wiki guidance carefully) The copyvio page goes "...However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation..." So I, Sychev Ivan, has posted all the images related to Mayboroda's biography and his inventions a) with the permission of their author, Alexander Mayboroda, HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO KEEPING THEM ON WIKI. WHAT IS THE DIFFICULTY? all these images are in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment If images owned by Alexander Mayboroda are being used with his permission, than the process in WP:Requesting copyright permission needs to be followed. -- 202.124.72.194 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there! not a problem. I'll get through the official procedure of WP:Requesting copyright permission although i have already got an oral permission. anyhow that's ok. now i am more concerned with posting more reliable sources confirming more and more points i make in the article. by the way the article has already been greatly modified in this sence, so, please, kindly check. I have removed info i m unlikely to prove very quickly. but now i m gonna put up more sources. the only problem for you, my dear editors, may be that it's gonna be mostly sources in russian language. or you have got problems with it? i think you should have russian editors you can contact to check my sources, that's not a big deal. otherwise it maybe quilified as "discrimination"...anyhow, thanks a lot for your patience and help Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (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.