Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Drobyshevski


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward Drobyshevski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article gives no 3rd party references. List of publications do not determine notability for the purposes of wikipedia and google searches provide little information other than the publication references. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the article is duplicated at Daemon (astrophysics), which was created by the same author. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, I nominated the article for PROD previously, and the PROD was contested by User:Phil Bridger. I welcome more input into this discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete as nomintator. My impression from reading the publishing history of this gentleman is that he was once a decent researcher, but has since gone off into fringe land. He now self-publishes a lot of papers on astro-ph, which is not peer reviewed.  Many of his recent papers are only cited by himself (e.g. ).  Similarly, he seems to have self published his own biography here and there are no mentions of him other in reliable sources than his authorship of various scientific papers which may not be themselves notable.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: The article seems to say he has a planet (albeit a minor one) named after him 4009_Drobyshevskij - if this is true is that not enough for notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep: Notability due to having a planet named after him. (Is this a reasonable criteria?) "Minor Planet (4009) Drobyshevskij 1977 EN1. Discovered 1977 March 13 by N. S. Chernykh at Nauchnyj. Named in honor of Ehduard Mikhajlovich Drobyshevskij, physicist and astrophysicist at the Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, author of some original cosmological ideas and theories of the origin of the planets and the minor bodies of the solar system, also known for his research on the magnetic fields of the sun and other stars. (M 19694) - Dictionary of Minor Planet Names  - Fringe nature of current views/publications does not invalidate earlier notability - and seems to me to add its own form of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment The complete minor planet list is here . Many of the names are not in wikipedia.  Of course that's a case of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, adding the minor planet bio to the article would give infinitely more reliable sources than are currently present in the article, which may save it from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ec There are thousands of such named planetesimals, so having one named after an astronomer is not an indicator of notability. It's an indicator that your colleagues know you. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The googlescholar results are fairly modest for someone with such a long research career. There are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc to indicate passing WP:PROF. Having a minor planet named after him is certainly interesting, but, in the absence of stronger evidence, is not quite sufficient, IMO, to establish academic notability. The nominator is correct that this also appears to be, at least in part, a WP:FRINGE case, which I think should raise the inclusion bar a little higher. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Extra sources: Looking round the web for Edward Drobyshevski - it seems to me his work on the Tunguska event seems to have got the most notice. The article doesn't really seem to mention this. I think Popular Mechanics referece for this is indicative of this stuff.
 * * http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/natural-disasters/4316464
 * and Ria Novosti
 * * http://www.rian.ru/science/20090330/166427555.html
 * The same in Google translate.
 * * Ria Novosti: Scientist: Tunguska catastrophe associated with the explosion of a hydrogen nucleus of comet


 * And his work on Giant pieces of Jupiter could kill all life on earth documented in Pravda
 * * http://www.pravda.ru/news/science/27-06-2008/273686-vzryv-0/
 * Are these the fringe things being refered too? They do seem to have attracted some notice - but don't seem too off the wall. Would adding comments on these and the references to the article help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Added popular media refs: I have added these refs to the article in case it might help(Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete. GS cites are 10, 10, 6, 1. Mainstream work insufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Possible problem with GS cites count: I think there may be a possible problem with the GS cites reported just above as being 10, 10, 6, 1. If one looks here: "EM Drobyshevski" - Google Scholar seems to be reporting 43, 21, 16, 16 etc. Also not so sure whether GS is so good on Russian scholastic output,  Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for this useful research. Unfortunately h index still only comes to 11 which is not really enough. GS should be excellent on mainstream publications in astronomy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Question: This looks to me like on the basis of arguments here - might be going to fail WP:Prof - but seems to me having the mini-planent named after him (with the note about why) and the references to his "original" ideas discussed in Pravda and Popular Mechanics are "significant coverage" and are more than a trivial mentions in reliable sources and should be sufficient for general notability. Is the planet too trivial and Pravda and Pop mechanics not reliable or the articles not so important? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC))
 * The articles are not about Drobyshevski. Secondary sources, by definition, analyze the topic. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Little comment: The articles in Pravda, Ria Novosti and Popular Mechanics are about some of Drobyshevski's work and one's work can make one notable. This is our usual logic I think. If you were to read those kind of articles - you might want to look him up and I think that is where our encyclopedia is sometimes really useful. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
 * You will note I haven't notvoted, I am just saying that having an asteroid named after you (if you are an astronomer) doesn't mean anything, and that the articles aren't about him. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to be notable given the sources. The article could and should be improved. Even if his theories are wrong he still seems to be notable. I hope that there is not a prejudice against his article because he worked in the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I have done a little copy editting and the like in an attempt to help. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep - I don't know whether he is regarded as orthodox or fringe in the field of astrophysics, that's not where I live. But if you search for Eduard Drobyshevsky you will come up with articles such as THIS 2008 PIECE IN THE ENGLISH EDITION OF PRAVDA citing him as an expert. I would be very, very, very hesitant to remove this one. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
 * Comment There's an issue here that has come up in other areas of wikipedia for which there is no easy answer. The views expressed in the linked article are clearly fringe.  But they are cited in a "reliable" (I hold a low opinion on the reliability of pravda, but let's leave aside that argument for the time being) source.  The mainstream and slightly out of mainstream media are happy to report fringe scientific theories.  Since they are obscure theories however, there are no rebuttals published in reliable sources.  WP:FRINGE states that fringe views should not be given undue weight.  How can we avoid giving undue weight to a fringe theory covered in reliable sources, but for which a rebuttal is not available?  In my mind, the solution is to delete such articles, especially when the fringe view itself is thinly sourced.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, more specific to this article, is someone being quoted in an article sufficient to establish notability? My impression based on WP:GNG is that it is not.  There must be a reliable source that is substantially about the individual, not just their views.  The asteroid citation is the only source that remotely qualifies, and I don't feel that it is adequate.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, first by precedent as namesake of a minor planet, second because of notable fringe scientific theorist. If someone's  distinctive views are notable, they are notable. With the exception of media personalities, what is important about a person is the work or accomplishments that they are known for. If we have significant coverage of that, it's sufficient--people are not generally notable  for the miscellaneous facts of his biography.    DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that having a minor planet named after a person confers notability on that person. Your use of the word "precedent" is troubling. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (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.