Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Maleshin


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dmitry Maleshin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography of a Russian legal scholar. According to his GScholar profile, he has been cited 101 times (h-index=5). The only claim to notability under WP:ACADEMIC would be that he is editor-in-chief of the Russian Law Journal, but that was deleted after an AFD. No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC. No sources showing that he meets WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that a GS h-index of 5 doesn't satisfy criteria 1 of WP:PROF in this field. Law is apparently a very low citation field for academics. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor (2.8) is the lowest of any of the social sciences, significantly less than the average across all such disciplines (4.9), and far below the number suggested by Hirsch for a (full) professor of physics (18). I am under the impression that we will accept as notable a scientist with a h-index of 20 based on Hirch's suggestion for a "successful scientist". Therefore, assuming the numbers scale linearly (I have no idea whether they do), we would presumably accept a law professor with a h-index of 4 (on the logic of 20÷(18/2.8)~3.1). I appreciate the Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators have a citation threshold 154 for the social sciences, but the level of citation in this field appears to be significantly below the average for the social sciences as a whole, based on average h-indexes. So, all things considered, it isn't clear to me why it is not enough for this individual to have a h-index that is more than 78% above the average for a full professor in his field. It might be helpful if the nominator would explain precisely what level of citation he thinks a Russian law professor should have and why. James500 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify what I said in the nom. I don't think that an h-index of 5 proves that there is no notability, nor does the citation count of 101 (proving absence of anything is very difficult if not impossible, anyway). You're absolutely right that such counts are generally low in this field. However, what I want to say is that by looking at citation counts/h-index, I don't find any evidence in support of notability. An h-index of 2.8 is ridiculously easy to get (one only has to cite oneself in three papers...). What this all shows is that citations are not very helpful in this field to establish notability. However, if there had been lots of citations, that could have established notability (so I mentioned it as part of WP:BEFORE). Hope this sounds not too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for this discussion. If the main reason to delete is the GS h-index, it will be difficult to get any other index for a Russian legal scholar. Please let me know any Russian legal scholar who have higher index? there is nobody, from my point of view. The problem that Russian legal scholars make just few research in English and therefore don't have high level indexes.Yarik1949 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain above, the low h-index is not a reason to delete, it just doesn't provide any evidence for notability. In the absence of reliable sources, lack of notability ("No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC") is the policy-based reason that this is proposed for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite difficult to measure notability of a scholar, particulary of a legal scholar... Legal science doesn't have universe criteria. It has national specifity and character. Legislation is unique for every country. It is not mathematica or chemistry with common rules and academics. There is no common rules and academics in law. When we speak about Russian legal scholars it's a lack of English research and as a consequence there is no famous English speaking academics. I think there is no one Russian legal scholar in English Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that there is no legal science in Russia. The main reason is mentioned above: there are just few who is recognised on the international level.Yarik1949 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That it is difficult doesn't mean we should throw our notability criteria out. In any case, it is not necessary for someone to be internationally known in order to be notable. We have quite a lot of articles on people that are only locally notable. Sources in Russian are acceptable, too, as long as they are reliable and independent of the subject. I note that there is apparently no article for this person in the Russian WP either... How is his name written in Russian? (That may help us find sources). --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian sources and articles are here: His Moscow State University profile with more than 120 articles: https://istina.msu.ru/profile/maleshin/ Academia.edu profile: https://moscowstate.academia.edu/DmitryMaleshin Yarik1949 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In Russian: Малешин Дмитрий Ярославович
 * But those are not independent... --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "independent"? You could have publications or couldn't have. Maleshin has more than 120 publications in different languages...Yarik1949 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we could reach a consensus because nobody listen to the arguments... Thank you for your timeYarik1949 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Publishing is not what makes somebody notable. All academics publish, that is what they do and what they are paid for. What counts is whether those publications have been noted, i.e., have had an impact that can be verified by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The two sources you give above (academia.com and his university page) are not independent of the subject, because he likely provided that information himself. BTW, I note that "Малешин Дмитрий Ярославович" does not give a single hit on the Russian wiki either. In order for us to have an article, a subject needs to meet either the general notability guideline, os a specialty guideline such as WP:ACADEMIC. I see no evidence that Maleshin meets either. I understand your frustration: creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. But please read those guidelines, because following them will make yoru life here much easier. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maleshin meets most of criterias that mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC, including: 1)significant impact in their scholarly discipline; 2) member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; 3)The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education; 4)The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post; 5)chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Please have a look updated page. The problem that we measure Maleshin's notability differently...Yarik1949 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read my last comment again. (Especially the linked policies about verifiability and independent reliable sources). I don't see any evidence of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please check again the updated page. All te criterias are there: membership in prestigious scholarly societies; editorship, etc. What do you want to see? Nobel Prize? Nobody got Nobel prize in law. There is no any reason for me to continue this discussion. Nobody listen to the arguments. Thank you for your timeYarik1949 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also try to understand the policies that you are reading (and don't forget the explanatory notes).. "Membership" in prestigious societies is not enough, after all, the only thing one has to do is pay the dues. It needs to be elected into somthing like a national academy of sciences or similar prestigious honor. As for the editorship, Maleshin is editor for two journals, neither of them notable, hence neither of them "a major well-established academic journal". If anybody is not listening here, I'm afraid it is you yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat that Maleshin meets most of criterias that mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC. 1). Editorship: the Russian Law Journal is the best legal academic journal in Russia, the only one that indexed by Heinonline, etc. He is also member of editorials of other Russian and International legal academic journals; 2) membership. He is a member of a major international organisation in the field of civil procedure - International association of procedural law. He is not ordinary member, but a member of a Council and was elected there in 2008; 3)He has been during 10 years Vice Dean of the leading law school in Russia of Moscow State University and got major votes in Dean's elections in 2013. It was a big event and notorious affair; 3) He has drafted many statutes on the legal education in Russia and has a significant impact on the higher education in Russia; 4) He participates in many international academic projects and his academic work has made a significant impact in the field of civil procedure. I can continue... I think he is notable in the field of civil procedure and legal education in Russia.Yarik1949 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I repeat: 1/ None of these journals is notable (the Russian Law Journal was deleted after an AfD even): doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 2/ None of those are major elected memberships and honors: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 3/ There are no reliable sources that make this assertion verifiable: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 4/ Participating in projects is what all academics do. However, there are no reliable sources that documents that this participation made any impact: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I told you that the Russian Law Journal is the best in Russia and is the one that is indexed by international databases. It was deleted in WIKI by you. Therefore you can't edit any other pages related to it! And I repeat you that it is notable! It is only your opinion that it doesn't meet WIKI criteria. You don't listen to any arguments and I don't have any wish to continue discussion with you. Your opinion is prejudice and I propose you to stop editing the pages that I creat or improve!Yarik1949 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can tell me that as often as you like, but the community decision at the AfD was that notability was not supported by any verifiable evidence. Please get familiar with the policies and guidelines that I have linked to, a good understanding of them will make your life decidedly easier here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What is community decision? It's your personal decision that doesn't meet any criteria. I repeat that you don't listen to the arguments at all and your decisions are prejudice. You delete all the pages that I try to improve or create without any expalnations!Yarik1949 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An AfD (like this one) is a community discussion. The Russian Law Journal was proposed for deletion by me (see Articles for deletion/Russian Law Journal). The participants agreed with my assessment and the debate was closed, and the article deleted, by an independent admin, not me. SO it was deleted per community consensus, not some unilateral decision of myself. Once more, please familiarize yourself with our guidelines and policies. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2015 (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.