Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov


 * 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, default to delete per subject request.. NW ( Talk ) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, the article is based on a single source, probably written by Borisov himself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Important note: The subject of the article has emailed me (I am almost positive it is not a forged email) to indicate that he would like to have to article deleted. NW ( Talk ) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This is certainly something to keep in mind, but not enough for me to change my !vote yet. He is a reasonably prominent academic, and the article does not contain nor has it contained in the past any potentially negative or controversial information; same goes for the Russian Wikipedia article about him. So I do not see any potentially significant BLP issues here, which is what I would need to see in a non-marginal notability case to sway in favor of deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * for academics, it usually means they are so insulted by having their notability even questions that they would rather have nothing at all than see the discussion continue. I can well understand, but given there is already a discussion, and it will probably conclude with finding him notable, I don;t think it need concern us too much--the concerns can be met by blanking the AfD. For someone who is almost certainly not notable, then I can in fact see the advantage of cutting the discussion short. I am generally opposed to letting the subject have any particular weight beyond anyone else, but looking at it this way, I can see the point of DONOHARM, when the discussion will be primarily a negative one.   that does not seem to apply here.    DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG, your argument is very reasonable, but unfortunately, it suffers from you not having all the facts at your disposal. I'm not really sure that I can go into further detail, but I am intentionally not giving all the facts behind the rationale for requesting deletion. NW ( Talk ) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep considering the publications . They, and the academic rank, (Chairman & full professor at Moscow State University)  are sufficient to show him an  authority in his field. Doesn't matter in the least who wrote the article, because the sourcing from an official CV is a RS for what he wrote, which is the basis of the notability. I call attention to a discussion at AN/I.    DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. DGG is correct: Moscow State University is the number one university in Russia in terms of prestige and being a full professor there is already pretty much a guarantee of academic notability. GoogleBooks also gives substantial results: 73 hits for his full name in Russian (Николай Сергеевич Борисов) and 397 hits for abbreviation of his name, Н. С. Борисов. For the latter search there are a few false positives, but after I looked more closely, it was clear that the great majority of hits relate to him. GoogleBooks has much more limited search data in Russian than in English so I think these results are fairly impressive. He did win a national-level literary award (the Metripolitan Macarius Prize). While the other award, from Molodaya Gvardiya, is from the publishing house where his book was published, the award is certainly a plus. In fact, Molodaya Gvardiya is an 85-year-old publishing house and "Zhizn' zamechatel'nikh lyudei" (Life of Remarkable People) is an old and popular book series, so having published a book there at all is already pretty good. Being shortlisted for the Alexander Nevsky prize is also a plus. Similarly, being a candidate in the Russian Academy of Sciences elections is indicative of academic notability. For academy membership it is not possible to self-nominate; you have to be nominated either by one of the members of the academy or by one of scientific councils (by a secret ballot) authorized to award advanced degrees. This makes for quite a solid case for passing WP:PROF, criterion 1. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An extra cmnt re Alexandr Nevsky Prize. This newsrelease from the Union of Writers of Russia indicates that there were several iterations in the competition and that Borisov's book was one of the 12 finalists. Specifically it says that "out of 50 entries admitted to the last stage of the competition", the short list of 12 entries (including Borisov's) was selected; the three prize winners were chosen from these 12. So Borisov was a finalist in the competition, even if he did not win the Nevsky prize. Nsk92 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  on basis of analyses above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep as per Xxanthippe.Varsovian (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject's request.  nableezy  - 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where was that request made? Varsovian (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See the important note at the top of the page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the brain failure. Now that I have engaged my brain I think very much along the same lines as Nsk92.Varsovian (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Meets criterion for academic notability. I see no reason to heed the request by subject for deletion should be disregarded, without some kind of valid motivation. ¨¨ victor  falk  11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a courtesy as per subject's request. Might be weak keep otherwise, but I see no crucial encyclopedic interest here that would make an article on him obviously necessary. Subjects' requests of this sort, especially in cases of otherwise non-controversial bios where they do not appear to be motivated by self-promotion, desire to avoid legitimate critical scrutiny or the like, but simply by a desire for privacy, should generally be honoured in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete on basis of above argument on subject's desire for privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Per Nsk92 and DGG, does not seem of marginal notability, and there don't seem to be any real BLP/privacy issues.John Z (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conflicted keep. If there was no request for deletion from the article's subject, I believe Nsk92 has done an excellent job fleshing out reliable sources, and this would be a clear keep.  However, I'm hesitant due to the subject's deletion request.  If someone chooses to be in the public eye, they can't very well say "no Wikipedia article", even if they are "marginally notable" (whatever that means).  If someone has not sought out fame, but has become notable in their field through sheer hard work, I'm more inclined to respect their wishes, even if they are somewhat more than "marginally notable".  In this case, because the article subject has evidently chosen to host a television program, that meets my "chooses to be in the public eye" criterion, and I believe the article should not be deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, not notable-- NotedGrant  Talk  17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral per Nsk92. Unless the man googles himself in English every day, it's quite strange how he found this article only couple of days after it was posted here, and how he presumably emailed the admin who declined the CSD. Arguably, he had a bio on the Russian Wikipedia for much longer. I don't see evidence he tried to have that deleted. There have been no BLP issues with this article either. I'd be willing to reconsider if an OTRS ticket is posted. Pcap ping  18:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're calling my integrity into question regarding this issue, then I can ask for him to email OTRS. Would you like for me to do that? NW ( Talk ) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not your integrity, but you may be assuming too much good faith in the realm of WP:EEML shenanigans. I suggest you forward the email with full headers to OTRS. Pcap ping  22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, his bio isn't linked from anywhere useful on this Wikipedia, so while he qualifies per WP:PROF, not a whole lot is lost here (unlike the Russian Wikipedia ), assuming he was really the one who sent that email. Pcap ping  13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? No links is in no way a reason for deletion, merely for tagging with the orphan template. I must say I missed the ru:wiki article, and upon reading it, it is clear that he meets several of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC. ¨¨ victor   falk  02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it has been shown that the subject is just notable, he is not a public figure, has requested deletion, and as Fut.Perf. says we do no harm to the encyclopedia by not having this article. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No public figure? Conducts program "History of Russia. Lectures" on channel Bibigon.¨ ¨¨ victor  falk  02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - barely notable, and the subject requests deletion. That's good enough for me - A l is o n  ❤ 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Presenter on a children's TV show and some academic work, third prizes and finalist positions and the like, prizes and awards from his publisher, dodgy sources == barely notable. Subject request seals deal. Delete ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian takes history seriously. They wouldn't wouldn't pick up a name out of a hat to educate the youth on a major television channel. ¨¨ victor   falk  02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject's request. Also seems to not meet notability criteria  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 04:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way does this not meet WP:PROF?  DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

*Delete- Neutral As per subjects request and the limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I am moving to neutral, and almost to a keep, there does after reading some comments, appear to be a good claim to notability and I didn't realize that there was no confirmation that the request for deletion isn't verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it limited, I see it as being at a very high academic level, and I've given above my view on why we should dicsount the subject's view--he's just embarrassed at this discussion, as well he might be, and deleting the article won;t cure it.   DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Borderline notability + a personal request for deletion?  Do the right thing people.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionably notable and prominent professor. Embarassment and self-effacement do not keep somebody from going down in history if their accomplishments are sufficient, and Professor Borisov's are (see DGG's analysis of his academic status above). Ray  Talk 08:09, 2 February 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.