Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev (2nd 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   delete. Flowerparty ☀ 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman K. Kovalev
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic. The list of publications is deceiving -- the italics give the impression they are books, when in fact most are articles (and some are merely book reviews). Google scholar search gives *very* low citation figures. A Gnews search provides precious little as well. This one survived AfD in 2006, but it's not clear what the basis for the keep votes was, and I don't think it meets WP:PROF as currently formulated. Recent Prod was declined on procedural grounds (having survived previous AfD). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Few hits on google scholar, no references, no third party sources establishing notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I prodded this article a few days ago and was convinced he failed WP:PROF. As near as I can tell he has an h-index of 0. Certainly it is in the sigle digits. Since the last AfD he has edited an $197 book (designed to be purchased by interested libraries, I imagine) The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450. He has also translated some things. He does good work, and his field is filled with thankless tasks, but all of the keep arguments in the previous AfD would be considered wrong now. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable scholar (the first to publish on the Spillings Horde) whose article has already survived an AFD in roughly its present form. Please respect established consensus and stop gaming the system with repititous AFDs. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attack. I don't think any of the people here were involved with the previous AfD, which was back in Feb 2006. I for one discovered your article by Google searching for assistant professors. In the intervening three years Kovalev has not advanced far enough to meet the increasingly stricter WP:PROF, and I think the previous AfD reached the wrong conclusion even then. The Spillings Horde is only mentioned in two articles; this is one of them. Joey the Mango (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the new book is published by Brill, the leading specialty publisher for the subject at Brill's customary prices. Though only published last year, it is already in 71 US/Canada/australian libraries according to worldcat, which is about as much as can be expected for the subject--it includes every major research library one would expect. Book reviews for books of this sort tend to come 2 or 3 years after the book--archeologists are the slowest to publish of all academic fields. There are actually considerably more papers and other minor publications than listed in the article, which seems to include only those in Western languages--including the Russian ones, WorldCat shows 43. He does seem to be a leading authority in the subject. I think I will read the book, & its a rare author I work on here that i actually think that. :)
 * The nominator is using the same criteria he would in the sciences, & they do not apply. This is not a personal attack, but a collegial criticism of his methodology which I & others have told him privately   when he started on the group of deletions. . I've been here working on this subject the whole period since the first AfD, and WP:PROF has not gotten stricter, merely better established. How the nominator commentator above thinks its a new strictness I cannot tell, since he only started nominating these articles for deletion one week ago, and only joined WP on May 29, 2009.  That he's new here is shown by his using the argument that the subject of his study is unimportant because   WP does not have many articles on it.  Actually, that's a reflection of our cultural and intellectual bias. At WP, we can tell each other that we're wrong without it being personal, and throwing around No Personal Attack at the slightest criticism does not contribute to cooperative decision making. DGG (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification that I as nominator for this AfD am not the person DGG is referring to here; I understand DGG's general concerns, but in this case I happen to think that the editor who proposed it for deletion is correct in concluding Kovalev is not notable. He appears to write a lot, but his work is not cited. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected my statement--I carelessly assumed it from remembering the prod. My comments do not of course apply to you. I'll agree it is not easy to show notability in archeology, because of the extremely specialized nature of most of the work and the unhelpful peculiar publication patterns alluded to, and good people can differ with respect to where to draw the line. My apologies DGG (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cheerfully admitted on my talk page that I cycle through accounts for personal reasons. I am the Nathan Brazil of Wikipedia. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What are your personal reasons, who is Nathan Brazil and what is his relevance? This information will be useful in assessing what authority to give to your edits on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
 * AfDs are to be assessed on their merits. I explained on my talk page. Google will explain the Nathan Brazil allusion. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's as clear as mud to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
 * AfDs are to be considered on their merits, unless they are disruptive, and I didn't even nominate this one. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K., but what has Nathan Brazil got to do with it? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
 * He is a character in the Well of Souls series by that "talented hack" Jack L. Chalker who is immortal and has many (sequential) identities, not because he is trying to hide, but because his memory is full. Joey the Mango (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what WP:PROF looked like at the time of the previous AfD. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment We can't just hope that one day reliable sources treating the subject will be published and be patient because "archeologists are the slowest to publish". We must remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person and the content of the article must be verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, DGG, because I know you like to keep articles about genuine scholars, but I'm really not seeing how Roman K. Kovalev is notable. Interestingly, while I was researching this AfD, I did discover that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Judith Jesch.  (I was comparing google scholar citation counts, and I selected Jesch as my benchmark for an unquestionably notable dark age archaeologist.  She's got rather a lot more citations than poor Kovalev.) I think if there's a drive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dark age archaeologists, we'd be better off starting with her.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether Jesch does or does not have an article (and I think she should) has no bearing on whether Kovalev is notable. Your criteria make no sense whatsoever. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Productive scholar, well on his way to WP notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
 * "well on his way to notability" can be interpreted to mean "not notable yet". Abductive (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote exactly what I meant, no more, no less. Note: Abductive previously edited this page under the name of Joey the Mango. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete Not notable by WP:BIO or WP:PROF or any other standard we have. Even the people saying keep or arguing on behalf of the article are admitting he isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per those above. Insufficiently referenced, notability not established per BIO or PROF. Keep arguments are not convincing. لenna  vecia  20:31, 15 June 2009 (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.