Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Vishnevsky


 * 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. While charlatans may be notable, there is a consensus here that he lacks notability whether as a charlatan or an academic. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Vishnevsky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Hmm, not quite sure what to say here. All the sources currently in the article are to the the works of the subject himself, which already places close to WP:TNT territory. There are no references in English that I could find. The subject does seem fairly well known in Russia, but much of the coverage in the media concerns his pushing various pseudo-science and WP:FRINGE ideas about panacea healing properties of mushrooms. See the link to the Russian Wikipedia version of the article for more refs (in Russian) of this kind. Russian media being what it is, these ideas often get favorable reception there, which makes it particularly hard to separate what kind of Russian news coverage of the subject constitutes WP:RS from what kind doesn't. As an example, this interview with the subject in Komsomolskaya Pravda is entitled "Magical mushroom 5 times more expensive than gold invigorates and heals cancer." Here is a Russian news article where some scientist tries to push back against the pseudo-scientific claims regarding Chaga mushrooms, but of course it is hard to compete with a promise of a quick cure for cancer. My feeling is that if a WP article about Vishnevsky were to be included here at en-wiki, it would need to be extremely carefully sourced to WP:RS, with the WP:FRINGE pseudo-science aspects covered appropriately. I think that would require rewriting the article from scratch. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - there is a section in his RU-WP about his pushing all that pseudo-science non-sense about fungi as a panacea for oncologic disease. RU-article very implicitly says that his statements are met with critic from both scientists and media alike. EN-article does not have any of those. So, I think I might see what you are trying to do here. I agree that maybe TNT is a good way to go here. Just want to see that others think. Please ping me with replies on this. Meanwhile, I will add some "pseudo-science: disclaimers in the article. Kolma8 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, May be I used words "pseudo-science" too loose here. Unsupported claims will be better. My apologies. Kolma8 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is indeed a PhD mycologist and published around 10 books about mushrooms in Russian. These books belong to popular science and mostly "mainstream", but some of his personal presentations might not (I did not check). He is apparently well known because of his books and appearances in mass media. There are multiple sources about him (and interview with him) in Russian, such as, , , etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see that's exactly what I am talking about. The very first source you link is a favorable interview with Vishnevsky (also in Komsomolskaya Pravda) where he pushes the idea that the Chaga mushroom provides an effective cure against COVID-19. This kind of coverage most certainly does not qualify as WP:RS and does not contribute to notability; his views on the matter again appear to belong to the WP:FRINGE domain. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A person can be a charlatan, but still be notable and deserve a page (the ref shows he appears in major Russian newspapers). Is he actually a charlatan? I do not know because some components from fungi can indeed have antiviral properties . My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, now. He doesn't just claim that some fungi have antiviral properties. He claims: "But a fact is a fact. The mushroom, of which there are many in Russian groves, turned out to be effective against the new most dangerous virus that swept the planet in 2020." Charlatans and WP:FRINGE views promoters can be notable, yes. But their notability has to be established by coverage in WP:RS. An interview with Vishnevsky in Komsomolskaya Pravda promoting the idea that Chaga mushrooms can cure COVID does not qualify as WP:RS. In relation to medical topics (and especially anything to to with COVID-19), the standard for WP:RS is quite high and it is explained in detail in WP:MEDRS. Although Vishnevsky does have a PhD, it looks like his publications are almost exclusively in polular press and I don't see any citability (in either Russian or Einglish sources) of his work in research literature. If he is notable, his notability would have to be established under WP:GNG or WP:BIO, with significant care to make sure that the sources do qualify as WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, he is not notable for his research because he simply did not do such research, and that particular comment is indeed concerning. He may be notable only for publishing these books and appearing in newspapers, but my reading of this he is notable enough. I can be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete clearly fails our notability guidelines for academics. Also clearly fails the fringe notability guidelines. This guy is pushing false claims about how to cure a disease, and the coverage is not at the level we require to show people advocating such fringe ideas are notable. Not every PhD holder who has published multiple works is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet notability requirements for academics. Esculenta (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unable to find anything that would should he's a notable academic. I also didn't see significant independent coverage in reliable sources to support a claim that WP:GNG is met.  It's true that crackpots and charlatans can be WP notable through media coverage, but I'm not even seeing sufficient coverage for that.  Simply having a PhD does not make him WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — the majority of refs are books written by himself. The remaining refs do not necessarily indicate notability; one's an author profile. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 23:14, 17 February 2021 (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.