Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantin Korotkov


 * 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 ---  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Konstantin Korotkov

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is created by the person in question, and contains unverified information, that most likely is false. For example, he doesn't seem to actually be a professor at the university he claims to be, and the organisation of which is is supposedly an elected chairman seems to have only him as a member. Regebro (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I haven't checked the nom's claims, but if the article is substantively false, that's an automatic delete. The COI is a major concern. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University has a search engine in English here, and Korotkov does not come up as a professor.  The International Union of Medical and Applied Bioelectrography, the organization of which he is President, doesn't seem notable, either (I've prodded that article).  Bioelectrography is a fringe field, which detracts from this guy's notability.  In any case, fails WP:PROF:  he is not full professor at a major university and does not have a significant record of publication. (my mistake:  the article does assert a record, though it's impossible to tell if these are peer-reviewed or even respectable publications).  This article also fails WP:Verifiability. RJC Talk Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems that this guy is actually a major loon, rather than a minor one, and so passes WP:FRINGE.  The article still has to be radically rewritten to conform to that standard; if Okjhum wants to use it as evidence of Korotkov's duplicitous methods, perhaps he could link to an old version of the page, after it's been brought into line with Wikipedia policy.  Also, could Pieter Kuiper provide a link to the article about Korotkov?  The article still has severe WP:RS issues.  Okjhum's Yahoo! group might be a good place to start finding information (though does not itself count as a reliable source, unfortunately).  RJC Talk Contribs 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have done quite a bit of research in both English and Russian, and everything indicates that the man is a hoax. I also met him and heard his extraordinary claims at a full-day seminar in Sweden (Dec. 2007), which I tried to stop. But I couldn't convince the gullible organizers. I'm collecting and publishing my findings in the Yahoo-group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/korotkov/ to debunk him - or give him or his followers a chance to present their facts. I think this Wikipedia page, written by Mr. Korotkov himself, should be kept here as a proof of his methods, and as an effective means to inform the public. I was planning to add my link to it, when I found that the page might be deleted. Okjhum (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This reason sounds like it might run afoul of WP:BLP.  Is he a big enough name to pass WP:FRINGE? RJC Talk Contribs 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was here that I looked this guy up when controversy about him surfaced in the local newspaper. He is far out, but notable. Last week he was in Expressen, a national Swedish newspaper. The search result on the Petersburg University site does not mean much. It does not seem to list staff (try: Ivanov). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to be essentially a copyvio of his bio at the bottom of an interview at http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug3/korotkov.htm]. Given that undoubtedly wrote them both himself, its only a technical violation, but we could delete the article on that basis.DGG (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete on copyvio basis. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:21, 14 March 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.