Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luba Cherbakov


 * 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 -- Y not? 00:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Luba Cherbakov

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person, probably should be a speedy but you never know. Claim to notability is inventing SOMA, Service Oriented Modeling and Architecture. But this appears to be not a real thing like, I don't know, network topological design or whatever; it exists in the shadow world where six-hour PowerPoint presentations with title such as "Delivering the Integrated Enterprise - Practice, not Promise" (actual title of one of the refs) are delivered to brain-glazed flunkies. Be that as it may, the only real references are to Ms Cherbakov's work, not about her - except there's one bio, on a website belonging to some business organization -- and they are all IBM internal publications. No article. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete definately not notable for an article on its own. One can mention her on the relevant page of what she was credited for.(Lihaas (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC));


 * Delete: Wikipedia notability is not passed from a subject to a related subject. Apparently the "inventor" of (what appears at first glance to be) some PowerPoint content that itself doesn't have sufficient references on Wikipedia.  That's right: I don't understand it so I'm talking smack about it.  I know what Wikipedia guidelines are, though, and the buzzword-to-WP:RS ratio on Service-oriented modeling is unacceptable.  And in Talk:Service-oriented modeling it appears there were many of these concepts with related names, which Cherbakov may or may not have been involved in.  So this is a biography about a subject adjacent to a subtopic of a subject whose Wikipedia article itself has insufficient references.  That being said: Does anyone know how "distinguished" you have to be to be an IBM Distinguished Engineer? --Closeapple (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it's an internal IBM award or title given by IBM to IBM employees, so how useful can it be for determining notability? Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what a figured. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some highly rarefied award that everyone in the electrical engineering field considers the gold standard or something.  I assume it's just what it sounds like: people inside a company congratulating each other. --Closeapple (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete if the thing she invented is notable (something I'm not even sure about) she's not notable enough on her own. Most refs aren't independent, Google News shows little but passing mentions on its less than a page results, a few scholar results that appear to be passing mentions, and nothing serious in Google books. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Herostratus, your nomination is baseless. In addition, why are you nominating something to Afd, when you don't understand it. Apparently the "inventor" of... If you don't what it is, how can you be qualified to nominate it for deletion. Ealdgyth, why are you using Google News to establish notability, especially in the computing field.  Thats a terrible way of doing it. She is clearly notable. There are not that many distinguished engineers in IBM. Probably less than 100 or so in company the size of IBM. All of them are industry leaders. It's takes lots of time and energy and some luck to become a distinguished engineer. An in an industry as young as computing, these people really count. As for SOMA not being a real thing. It's a much of real thing, as the car in my drive. It's a product, with tools, software, training, the lot. scope_creep (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know all that. She's still not notable in Wikipedia terms, see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Notability (academics) could also apply, as although she's in business her work is partially similar to an academic researcher. And WP:BIO lets her in if she has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". But she hasn't, because if she had, there would be articles about her. And there aren't. Herostratus (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * scope_creep: "If you don't what it is, how can you be qualified to nominate it for deletion" sounds like a perfect argument against WP:Verifiability, to keep WP:Neologism and WP:HOAX articles in. Also, your claim "There are not that many distinguished engineers in IBM. Probably less than 100 or so in company the size of IBM." sounds suspiciously like you completely made that up, since different companies wouldn't issue awards the same way even at the same size.  What evidence is there that only "industry leaders" get this award?  As far as using Google News and Scholar to establish notability: What?!  Where do you think researchers in the computing field (of all things!) are putting their work that's not showing up on Google?  (And was it mentioned that the question is whether the person is notable for something other than being part of a subject (SOMA) that already has its own article?) --Closeapple (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis that first, her position is notable, as are corresponding positions at Microsoft, Google, etc. ; IBM Systems Journal is a publication of the greatest importance in the field (in over 1000 worldCat libraries) & is included in Web of Science.--her 3 publications there have been cited 39, 16, 6 times, which is quite respectable for scientist in industry. We do have problems here because they typically publish very little in the usual literature, and we need to go by subject specific (and sometime company-specific) measures. The orig nomination seems to show a certain degree of unfair skepticism that anyone in this field can possibly be notable .    DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 5 September 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.