Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Katchanovksi (3rd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While on a pure nose count this may seem like a "keep", many of the keep arguments are quite weak, either commenting on length of time since the last AfD (which has nothing whatsoever to do with a topic's suitability for an article), or, similarly, on page views and the like. However, some were not, and left substantial disagreement over whether the sourcing is or is not sufficient, so, no consensus it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject is a non-notable academic with a part-time teaching appointment at a University and scant publication record, known mainly for a WP:FRINGE theory asserting that the Heavenly hundred were shot by Maidan protestors themselves in a false flag operation. This assertion has been repeated by Russian propaganda sources and is considered disinformation by the EU: to the extent that it is notable, it should be removed to the Maidan casualties article.
 * Renominated after two inconclusive discussions. Nangaf (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * EU considers the false flag theory of Maidan to be disinformation
 * EU also considers variants of the false flag theory of Maidan to be disinformation


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Ukraine,  and Canada. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies. I show below the most cited:
 * Quoted in Google Scholar 1598 times (only a couple of months ago he was mentioned 1557 times, so there is great interest in his studies), with h-index 22 and i10-index	36.
 * "The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 151 times.
 * "The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 133 times.
 * "Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.
 * "The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 85 times.
 * "Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 84 times.
 * "Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 80 times.
 * Widely quoted in Google Books.
 * Widely quoted in Google News.
 * Important Western sources quoted him:
 * The Guardian
 * The New York Post
 * Reuters
 * Al Jazeera
 * Associated Press
 * The Washington Post
 * CBC.ca
 * The Nation
 * France 24
 * Radio Free Europe
 * Radio Canada International
 * Le Figaro
 * Courthouse News Service
 * Die Weltwoche
 * La Razón (Madrid)
 * CTV News
 * CP24
 * Panorama (magazine)
 * Note 1: Regarding the arguments that his studies are "disinformation", I point out that the source used, Euvsdisinfo quotes only Anton Khodza to "debunk" Katchanovski. Khodza talks about a third person quoting an alleged non-existent human rights group (IGCP) that has nothing to do with Katchanovski. The author of the article seems virtually unknown and was released on the website "site.ua". I invite you to read Khodza's text, it is full of unprofessional epithets and terminology. Moreover, to link Katchanovski to Khodza, Euvsdisinfo puts three links to websites that look like pro-Russian blogs. Two of which are offline and one online. Where would the debunking be?
 * Note 2: The previous AFD ended in July 2023. What is the point of repeating it after not even two months?--Mhorg (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it did not reach consensus. Neither did the nomination before that. Nangaf (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which WP:NACADEMIC criteria is the subject claimed to meet? —Michael Z. 15:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth looking at the actual citations. The list for most heavily cited article includes a very high number of duplicates, citations by the author himself in other publications, or citations by fringe conspiracy theorists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. UPD Sep 19: Katchanovski is highly cited and thus satisfies the first criterion of WP:NPROF, see the detailed analysis based on Scopus author profiles below. Original response: The proposer has not demonstrated that the subject does not satisfy the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. Also, the proposer's implied reasoning "X is used by propaganda, therefore X is fringe/false" is logically incorrect: propaganda uses (selectively) both true and false statements to advance a certain agenda. Alaexis¿question? 20:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at length in the previous AfD nominations. Which WP:NACADEMIC criteria does the subject meet? Nangaf (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one . His work has been cited a lot as shown by above. I've looked at the scholars whose work is mentioned in History_of_Ukraine, and some of them have similar numbers of citations (Serhy Yekelchyk vs Ivan Katchanovski) and even the most well-known and prominent ones have 2-5 times more.
 * Furthermore, Katchanovski's work has been cited by such prominent scholars as David Lane (The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation) and Richard Sakwa (Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands). Alaexis¿question? 09:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see comment below:  Nothing you have mentioned constitute evidence of this kind. Nangaf (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This quote is not based on policy. WP:NPROF says that . Some of Katchanovski's works have a comparable number of citations to the works of other prominent historians of Ukraine who are listed in History_of_Ukraine and have their own articles.
 * To preempt the otherstuffexists argument, I'm not arguing that Katchanovski is notable because Yekelchyk or someone else has a Wikipedia article, but rather establishing what "highly cited" means in this field. Alaexis¿question? 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the comments. Alaexis, Google Scholar is not consider independent reliable source. You are mistaken on this, as are others who are quoting the same; the only sources that we should consider are Scopus and Web of Science. There is no reference of the author in these that have been mentioned. For your benefit, Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, and not policy that you mention), provides details of why Google Scholar is unreliable, and why only Scopus and Web of Science should be considered. Unless there are independent reliable sources mentioned, the concept of quoting Google Scholar Citations is not something our guidelines accept without caution, and any argument mentioning Google Scholar citations should be ignored as being without basis, as per guidelines. Thank you,  Lourdes  07:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Scopus author profiles show the same picture. Again, I compared Katchanovski to authors that 1) are mentioned in History_of_Ukraine, 2) are active and 3) have Wikipedia articles in order to understand what "highly cited" means in this area. So here are the results
 * Serhii Plokhy: 362 citations, h-index 8
 * Magocsi, Paul Robert: 105 citations, h-index 5
 * Yekelchyk, Serhy: 254 citations, h-index 7
 * Kuzio, Taras: 1860 citations, h-index 23
 * Ivan Katchanovski: 279 citations, h-index 9.
 * So only Kuzio has much more citations and indexed works, whereas other prominent scholars have similar numbers. Alaexis¿question? 08:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, thanks and I am glad you are using Scopus to support the argument for the first time. Let me link Articles_for_deletion/Suzy Styles (h index 8, 240 Scopus citations; deleted because of low citations; see comments). Or Articles for deletion/Fatima Ebrahimi (h index 15, 598 Scopus citations; deleted because of low citations). Or Articles for deletion/Renad Zhdanov (h index 12; deleted because of low h index). And so on. The h index or citations you have quoted are too much below requirements. Ivan's Maidan paper, by the way, has zero citations on Scopus, showcasing how irrelevant it is to his profile. Finally, the reason the other professors (except Kuzio) are on Wikipedia are not because of their utterly bad Scopus citation numbers, but because of other NACADEMIC reasons, such as:
 * Serhii Plokhy: Director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
 * Magocsi, Paul Robert: Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto. Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Honorary Chairman of the World Congress of Rusyns
 * Yekelchyk, Serhy: President of the Canadian Association of Ukrainian Studies
 * Kuzio, Taras: 1860 citations, h-index 23, far above Ivan
 * To be honest, I suspect that the above academicians (except Kuzio) will have a hard time keeping their profiles here if we were to take them to AfD. So your logic of h index and Scopus citations is actually proving that we should delete this profile. Thank you, Lourdes  10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * None of your AfD examples are historians or political scientists. The guideline says that the meaning of "highly cited" is different for different scientific disciplines. Alaexis¿question? 11:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is true. As a former academic, however I can vouch for the fact that the rule of thumb for getting tenure at a US university in the social sciences is that an h-index of ~20 is considered a good target. Katchanovski is nowhere near that. Nangaf (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with the notion that Katchanovski does not fulfill criterion #1 (if anything, I believe he fulfills #7), and with the scepticism regarding the use of Google Scholar (I disagree with focusing excessively on Scopus and WoS, though, but that's a different matter!). However, as a current academic I find the claim that the rule of thumb for getting tenure at a US university in the social sciences is that an h-index of ~20 is considered a good target to be beyond puzzling. John Mearsheimer, has been described as the most influential realist of his generation, has an h-index of 21. You can find plenty of examples of tenured American academics in the social sciences and humanities with h-indices barely in the 2 digits. These are low citation fields and universities can and very much do look beyond a person's h-index. Ostalgia (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that not enough time has passed since the previous AFD closed.    ArcAngel    (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been two months since a no consensus close, that seems like a sufficient timeframe. Curbon7 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning Keep. Considering him as a scholar, he appears to have respectable citations for a few works (151,133,95,85,84), some of which are sole author, however the overall number of citations (1598) appears rather low. He has (co-)authored three books, for some of which the Ebscosearch finds multiple reviews:
 * The Paradox of American Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More Than Canadians Do, But Join Much Less: Gilbert, Ellen D. Library Journal. 7/15/2004, Vol. 129 Issue 12, p107; Brooks, Clem. Social Forces. Jun2005, Vol. 83 Issue 4, p1789-1791; International Labour Review. 2004, Vol. 143 Issue 4, p400; Freeman, Joshua B. Dissent (0012-3846). Fall2004, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p101-103; Russell, James W. American Review of Canadian Studies. Sep2005, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p547-549; Fantasia, Rick. Political Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science). Fall2005, Vol. 120 Issue 3, p525-526; Cepuran, Joseph. Perspectives on Political Science. Winter2005, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p56; and others (though that book seems to be 'with' him; not sure what his precise contribution was)
 * Cleft Countries: Regional Political Divisions & Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine & Moldova Dyczok, Marta. Journal of Ukrainian Studies. Summer2008-Winter2009, p548-549; Kuzio, Taras. Party Politics. Sep2009, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p662-664; Harasymiw, Bohdan. Slavic Review. Fall2007, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p546-547
 * Historical dictionary of Ukraine Browndorf, M. A. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Jan2014, Vol. 51 Issue 5, p812
 * Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The brief review by Dyczok is online (p 548). Nothing in it hints “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline” per WP:NACADEMIC, in fact the opposite. —Michael Z. 15:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Academics who publish books can also be notable under WP:AUTHOR, which is usually demonstrated by multiple reviews covering at least two authored books, which are available here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work That's clearly not met in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting the irony of Kuzio's review being used as evidence of notability here, while other editors on the article talk page are arguing that Kuzio should be removed entirely from the article because of his "beef" with the article subject. Unless the beef itself is notable (e.g. reported by independent RSs) then these two arguments seem incompatible to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Lean keep: Absolutely doesn't meet the specific WP:NACADEMIC criteria (as clearly described by multiple contributors to AfD 2), but I think he might meet WP:NBASIC criteria as a public commentator who receives some attention in the public sphere, as evidenced by the large number of page views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Katchanovski's efforts to appear in the public eye are his best claim for notability: it's hard to argue that he is notable as an academic or an author. However, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and these events are WP:RECENT. With the greatest of respect, the number of wikipage views seems like flimsy and transient evidence of notability. Nangaf (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, we literally just ended AfD on this topic. It was proven that this figure is significant enough. Marcelus (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing was proven, as the AfD was closed as no consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not note any accomplishments or influence that make the subject notable per WP:SCHOLAR. The Historical Dictionary of Ukraine is the only authorship that seems significant in my opinion, but there’s nothing encyclopedic referenced about it except the bare citation. The only reason there’s an article about this person is his Maidan sniper theory, which is arguably WP:FRINGE, and has only been taken seriously by a couple of scholars labelled pro-Kremlin by their peers, and countless conspiracy theorists, propagandists, and trolls. —Michael Z. 23:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. First of all, I agree with Bobfrombrockley that the subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Some content of the page is well sourced, possibly notable and deserves inclusion somewhere. It is the False_flag_theory_of_Euromaidan. But it is better be included to other pages related to Maidan. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's clear that the author writes on a controversial topic, which clearly generates some antipathy towards him and leads to a hostile environment in the talk page (something that is certainly not aided by the fact that the subject of the article himself has repeatedly tried to insert himself into the discussion). Some arguments in "defense" of Katchanovski by users on the tp are also less than stellar, such as stressing the number of citations, or name-dropping famous individuals who are not necessarily knowledgeable about the topic or area (note: based on what transpired later, many of these comments might have been made by Katchanovski himself). With this in mind, perhaps deleting the article would save us all some energy and potential headaches. Nevertheless, it is also clear (to me, at least) that the aforementioned antipathy should not trickle down to the article or the talk page, as it has (and both are covered by BLP). His views are evidently not the majority position (and the article should reflect that), but he has been cited approvingly by some respected scholars in the area and taken seriously by others. Some people are happy to point out that Putin has echoed some of those views as some sort of "gotcha" that would seal the deal, but I'm pretty sure Putin also believes in Newton's law of universal gravitation, so I would not suggest taking that argument to its logical conclusion! More to the point, I believe the subject complies with guideline #7 of WP:NACADEMIC, namely, The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. Katchanovski has published, been quoted/featured and/or interviewed in media from different political orientations in both his home countries (Ukraine: Krytyka, translated from OpenDemocracy (2012), Kyiv Post (2014), RBK Ukraina (2016); Canada: Globe and Mail (2021), Canadian Dimension (2022), CBC (2022)) and internationally (Australia: Sky Australia (2022); Brazil: O Globo, ft. agencies (2014); Denmark: Jyllands-Posten (2014); South Africa: Mail&Guardian (2023); Spain: ABC (2022), La Razón (2022); UAE: Al Jazeera (2015); UK: openDemocracy (2013), Daily Express (2022); US: The Nation (2014), Washington Post's Monkey Cage (2014), Jacobin (2022); worldwide: Reuters (2014)). The list is non-exhaustive and includes everything from long pieces to quotations. Needless to say, this does not imply an endorsement of Katchanovski's ideas either by me or by any of the mentioned media, but to pretend that he's merely some crackpot featured only on RT and Sputnik, as OP maintains, is just wrong (and, ironically enough, we often do have Wikipedia articles for those, such as Daniel Estulin), as is the notion that a political entity's labelling of something as "disinformation" could be grounds for Wikipedia to delete an article, which on top of wrong is outright dangerous - can you even imagine what that would mean for .ru wiki?. I'm not going to cast a vote, I'm complete fine with either result, but the framing of the AfD and of the entire discussion around this individual is less than ideal. If we cannot be critical but balanced at the same time, then perhaps its for the best that we don't have an article at all. Ostalgia (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the subject has published articles, and he was cited and briefly mentioned in publications by others. No one disputes this. But does it mean that he "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"? And what is his "impact", exactly? This is presumably his the False_flag_theory_of_Euromaidan, nothing else really. Is it really a "substantial impact"? Looking at the sources, it appears that is was not he who proposed this "theory" . I believe this "theory" would be better placed to Maidan casualties. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a case that can be made under #7, but Katchanovski is not exactly a household name. Even people who follow events in Ukraine pretty closely in the mainstream media would be unlikely to have ever heard of him, because his theory is outside the mainstream. The *single* exception to this is a guest article he wrote for the Washington Post in 2014, although I suppose you could stretch it to include his fleeting appearance in the straight-to-YouTube Oliver Stone documentary "Ukraine on Fire". The "impact" of his work can be gauged by the fact that he proposed this theory in 2014 -- 9 years ago -- and he still hasn't got a full-time job. He hasn't even got a research position! He is an adjunct teacher, and crowd funds his publications. This is the career trajectory of a crank. Nangaf (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're saying that he he proposed this theory in 2014 and it hasn't gained traction, ergo he is not notable. MVBW right above you states that is [sic] was not he who proposed this "theory", linking to some site that I have not checked (and probably will not check). The implication is that if he didn't propose the theory, then he should not have an article of his own, and the theory should be moved to another article. But here's the thing, you're both single-mindedly focusing on his Euromaidan theory when the article is not called "Ivan Katchanovski's whacky theories" but "Ivan Katchanovski". I'm not necessarily blaming you for obsessing over this theory, given that it's probably the issue he himself focused on the most in his talk page interventions, but one of the things I explicitly mentioned on the TP was that the article should be expanded beyond the coverage of his Euromaidan theory precisely because of this. Of the almost 20 links I posted above I would say the majority don't even mention his theories regarding who killed who when and where during anti-Yanukovych protests. Maybe when he goes on RT he does talk about that, but in mainstream "respectable" media he's just interviewed, quoted or invited to provide commentary as an academic focused on the study of Eastern Europe, which is why I believe he's covered by WP:NACADEMIC #7 - after all, a lot of frequent commentators of lesser academic standing both in terms of education and position have their own articles because of it. Still, I guess having to write this kind of proves the point I made earlier - deleting the article would save us a lot of trouble. Ostalgia (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Consensus on whether the article should be kept or deleted should depend upon either GNG or NACADEMIC, and not on personal opinions of commentators here. I am attempting a summary of each qualifier and showcase the subject's notability (or non-notability) below:
 * WP:GNG - Not met. There aren't multiple sources, in fact not even one, where the subject has been discussed at length.
 * WP:NACADEMIC
 * "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
 * It is important to understand what is meant by independent reliable sources. It doesn't mean citing papers from fellow scholars who are criticising or praising his work. It doesn't mean quoting Google Scholar citations or the number of books he has written. It means we need non-involved reliable sources that confirm that he has made a significant impact. Not one exists.
 * "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * Clearly not.
 * "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
 * Clearly not met.
 * "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * Clearly not met.
 * "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
 * Not met.
 * "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * Not met.
 * "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * Not relevant and not met.
 * "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Not met.


 * Per the above lack of meeting either GNG or even one clause of NACADEMIC, this BLP should be Deleted. If there are editors who can provide at least two reliable sources against even one NACADEMIC qualifier, I am ready to strike my comment. However, with significant research that I have undertaken, there is no reason for this BLP to remain on Wikipedia any more. Lourdes  05:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would've voted Keep in the last AfD based on the arguments there but didn't feel I had enough information to be absolutely sure; relisting here so soon seems a sort of POINT argument so I'll jump in this time. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It's helpful to know your reasoning as well as your conclusions: for guidelines see WP:DISCUSSAFD Nangaf (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks -- that'd be helpful if I hadn't already participated in thousands of AfDs before. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Notes for the closing admin: With the utmost respect for all commentators here, I am providing a summary of the 7 keep votes below. Once again, this is not to discredit any comments on this AfD. This is just my opinion from my experience in AfDs here:
 * 3 of the above 7 Keep votes have only one reasoning: That it is too soon since the last AfD closed. That leaves 4 Keep votes.
 * 1 Keep vote mentions that the proposer has not provided evidence that the subject does not meet NACADEMIC (!!!) Shouldn't it be vice versa, that the keep argument should provide evidence rather than the proposer? That leaves 3 Keep votes.
 * 1 Keep vote out of the remaining 3 is a "leaning keep" vote which mentions that the subject doesn't meet NACADEMIC (yes!) but his article's page views should qualify the subject on NBASIC (!!!). That leaves 2 valid Keep votes from 2 experienced commentators, versus 4 Delete votes, including the nominator's.
 * These are just notes for the closing administrator based on my assessments; and not intended to be a critique of any commentator here. Thank you, Lourdes  04:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No offense, but what you wrote is definitely a critique of Keep votes that you believe should be discounted by the closer. I've seen "Too soon since last AFD" comments come up in lots of AFDs and I've seen AFDs closed as Keep based on that objection alone but that is typically when a follow-up AFD is days, weeks or a month since the prior one. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz. What I meant is that I am not criticizing the commentators (just assessing their votes). You're right on the timeline front. Thank you for your response. Warmly, Lourdes  06:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Liz, it would be appropriate to close AfDs that basis soon after a positive decision to Keep, but no such consensus has ever formed on the article currently under consideration. Nangaf (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the proposer should provide solid policy-based arguments but we're not in court here and I've clarified my position. I would appreciate if you could update your summary. Alaexis¿question? 09:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is simply that the subject himself is not notable. My proposed course of action is to delete the article and remove any notable content about the false flag theory of the Maidan to an appropriate article. Nangaf (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you again Alaexis. You have re-quoted another editor now, who himself has quoted Google citations, which, as I mentioned above, are unacceptable in such cases. Once again, you need to refer to Notability (academics) to understand that the only independent reliable sources accepted for citations are Scopus and Web of Science. Any argument using Google citations in such borderline BLP cases which have zero references to Scopus and Web of Science, should be ignored, per our guidelines. Thank you, Lourdes  07:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Scopus requires a subscription but it turns out that basic profiles are available for free. I'll update my post. Alaexis¿question? 08:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep - I had never heard of this guy, but he's associated with some very important "theories" of how the war in Ukraine started. Regardless of where you stand on the war in Ukraine he seems like a important enough figure.
 * Frankly, Wikipedia would be worse off deleting this article. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is far more weakly grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines even than the seven bad keeps analyzed above by Lourdes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It's helpful to know your reasoning as well as your conclusions: for guidelines see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Nangaf (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks David If I were to describe this person in one line, it would be: "Visiting lecturer with zero GNG coverage, 9 h-index, 279 Scopus citations, and having zero Scopus citations of the very theory that is supposed to be his claim to fame." I was tad disappointed at the re-listing, but I guess consensus is not seen in the same way by different administrators. Lourdes  06:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lourdes, while I agree with the spirit of your reply (as I see it, you're suggesting that Jjazz76 should not swallow Katchanovski's theories hook, line and sinker without considering criticism of them), its content is quite inaccurate. Katchanovski is not a visiting lecturer but a part-time lecturer, and while I'm unfamiliar with the system in Canada and do not know what exactly this entails, it's an undoubtedly different role, as he's been at Ottawa for 13 years. I would not focus on his h-index too much as it's not absurdly low for his field, either. Most importantly, however, the statement regarding having zero Scopus citations of the very theory that is supposed to be his claim to fame, considering the paper you are seemingly referring to was published 3 months ago, is very much misleading. I don't think it is humanly possible to review his paper, incorporate it in your research (whether you're citing it approvingly or ripping it to shreds) and then get your own paper through peer review in the span of 3 months. Considering this person's evident self-consciousness and litigiousness, I would consider amending or striking that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that is not true to say that Katchanovski's false flag theory is completely uncited in the literature. However, that is not by itself sufficient evidence that K is notable as an academic.
 * An h-index of 9 would not be absurdly low for a historian, or somebody who publishes mainly in the form of books or long monographs, but it is distinctly unimpressive in the quantitative social sciences, which is his actual area of expertise. (To the extent that he has gathered information independently for his own publications, the data are from surveys. He also teaches quantitative methodology.)
 * The nature of his appointment at Ottawa is not entirely clear. However, the following facts are established: he is affiliated with Ottawa; he teaches there; it is a part time appointment; and he crowd-funded the costs of a recent publication, suggesting that he has funding neither from research grants nor from his institution. No grant income is listed on his institutional webpage or Scopus.
 * Despite what he may have told people on YouTube or Twitter, he is not a "Professor". And since, being a part-timer, he definitely does not have a tenure track appointment, he could stay in his current position for another 13 years and he would not be any closer to being one.
 * This really is not a marginal case. Katchanovski is nowhere near notable as an WP:ACADEMIC. Nangaf (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how any of that relates to the point I'm trying to make in the message you're replying to, which is that we should be careful with the wording, given the issues we have already had. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a contentious topic. All the more reason to be scrupulously accurate in the factual content of one's posts. Nangaf (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting weird – it's not the first time you reply to me to go on a tangent only to later repeat the exact same point I was making (and which I wish you would apply to yourself). I don't know what to make of that, frankly, but it's something beyond the scope of the AfD. I believe my participation here has run its course, I stand by my earlier comment and arguments both for and against, and will just wait in the wings for this to be closed. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My polite suggestion is to get your facts straight. And if you can't do that, then I agree that not participating in the discussion is a good solution. Nangaf (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is anything but polite, just like pretty much every interaction you have had with anyone who expressed an opinion that is not perfectly aligned with yours, but I'll still afford you the courtesy of one last reply.
 * What you call "my facts" are perfectly straight. That instead of looking at them you decide to argue with straw men that exist only in your imagination is an entirely you problem, and that is what makes further participation in this discussion pointless. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My friends, both of you seem to be pragmatic and intelligent editors; so, it is unfortunate that your discussions are quite acerbic. I would suggest not to interact with each other any more here as it is not required. I hope this request is seen in a positive light. Thank you, Lourdes  06:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank my fellow editor for a fulsome contribution to the thread, and commend the economy of thought with which they have expressed their many words. Nangaf (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2023 (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.