Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadim Nikolayev


 * 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Vadim Nikolayev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent sources are provided to prove this person's notability. The article in ru.wiki was deleted years ago, its author User:Анна Волкова (the same as in en.wiki) is proven to be Vadim Nikolaev's sockpuppet. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I simply no better improvement although Books and browser found some links and Scholar? (Vadim S. Nikolayev) unless this can be better improved. Pinging interested user . SwisterTwister   talk  07:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) I wrote this article in the beginning of August 2012, and in August 9 it was accepted by reviewer Gyan Gardevoir. Nobody didn’t present claims more than three years. So the attack of Andrey Romanenko (Андрей Романенко) is very strange.

Anyone who know Russian language may read in Mr. Romanenko’s note 1 that he requested in ru.wikipedia the check of me with the violation of the rules. Dmitry Rozhkov pointed on it and pointed concrete rule but the check-users didn’t want to listen him. Yet the discussion quickly finished after my posting (I wrote about the contradiction in two postings of one check-user).

Now Mr. Romanenko wrote that I’m an author of the article about Vadim Nikolayev in ru.wikipedia. It’s a mistake. An author of this article is Vladislav Skvortsov (I only want to restore the article, and Mr. Romanenko requested the check of me). Mr. Rozhkov wrote (see note of Andrey Romanenko) that Mr. Romanenko absurdly mixed Mr. Nikolayev and Mr. Skvortsov, knowing that these people are existing and existing «in common field of the activity – in the translation». Really, in the book ''William Shakespeare. Sonnets: The Anthology of Modern Translations'' (Mr. Nikolayev is one of two compilers) Sonnet 90 presented in six translations. One translation was made by Mr. Nikolayev, other – by Vladislav Skvortsov. But Mr. Romanenko claimed that Mr. Skvortsov is sockpuppet of Mr. Nikolayev. I think that you understood – I’m the same sockpuppet of Mr. Nikolayev as Vladislav Skvortsov.

Mr. Romanenko wrote that «no independent resourses are provided to prove this person’s notability». The article in ru.wikipedia has not been restored with the violation of the rules (oh, you don’t know Russian Wikipedia – Wikipedia in my mad land!). I wrote about it to the member, which accepted this decision, and pointed on the violation. He answered to me but he didn’t want to discuss about his violation, he didn’t write no word about it. He just showed me that the article in en.wikipedia (the article was already accepted) is (I apologize) shit for him.

I was the patroller in ru.wikipedia. , I’m an author of two «good» articles (with the star). Some members advised me: «Never conflict with Romanenko». I listened that Mr. Romanenko somehow hate Mr. Nikolayev, and I knew my risk when I decided to restore the article. They blocked me by absurd, defamatory reason.

In en.wikipedia I meet other atmosphere. Author of FIRST Russian encyclopedia about William Shakespeare (at the time, when Russian government almost don’t invest money into the science), one of two compilers of the book, whose copy is in the Library of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, have the notability here. If you read the text of the article, you’ll make sure in this notability.

Why Mr. Romanenko made his attack so late? I think that the members of ru.wikipedia, which know about the article in en.wikipedia, hid it from him. I think they understand – if the article about such person as Mr. Nikolayev absent in Russian Wikipedia, it is the shame.

I believe that the administrators of en.wikipedia, main Wikipedia of the world, will not delete the article about Vadim Nikolayev.

Sincerely. Анна Волкова (talk)


 * I am not going to discuss this soap opera about poor Shakespeare scholars bullied with these terrible Russians. I am sysop at ru.wiki with ca. 80.000 edits and kinda know how it works when you delete the article about some pretty self-promotional person and then for years face the claims about your off-line enmity towards him/her. Here, by the way, Mr. Nikolayev himself tells the story (in Russian, sorry) admitting that he had written the article about himself under a nickname. However, this is not the point. The point is that there is no serious proofs of notability of Mr. Nikolayev. His articles and translations are mostly self-published. His papers and articles are good enough to be briefly mentioned in a footnote (like here). His Shakespeare encyclopedia has no coverage in academic sources and got a single short review in a general media  saying that the book is irresponsible hack-work. So I guess there's no need to mislead English-speaking readership into believeing that there is so remarkable figure among Russian men of letters. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You live in Russia and you know that Russian government (as I wrote) almost don’t invest money into the science. It's not soap opera, alas. You know that Shakespeare Comittee of the Russian Academy of Sciences discussed Mr. Nikolayev's encyclopedia in the birthday of William Shakespeare (April 23, 2008) but you сlaim that his Shakespeare encyclopedia has no coverage in academic sources. Do you use that the site of Shakespeare Comittee now is closed (by financial problems), and my notes on it are gone? These notes have been tested earlier. You wrote that the enciclopedia "got a single short review in a general media". Do you know that general media give small information about scientific encyclopedia? And you know that Mr. Nikolayev read the reports on scientific conferention.

About the fact that Mr. Skvortsov (no Mr. Nikolayev) wrote the article in ru.wikipedia you may read higher. And you may read (with the help of my note 2) their translations of Shakespeare's sonnet 90. I'm sure that you know about the styles of the translation.

You refered on one fulsified article. I know the situation. The author of this article in little Internet resourse subscribed under the name of Vadim Nikolayev. Mr. Nikolayev calculated him and filed a lawsuit. Real author is the member of ru.wikipedia (I know his name but I'm not call it).

You are the administrator of ru.wikipedia. I can't find in it the article about electronic encyclopedia World of Shakespeare, about two other philological sites, which has been created by Nikolay V. Zakharov, scientific Secretary of Shakespeare Commitee of the Russian Academy of Sciences, doctor of philosophy, the academician. I can't find the article about Mr. Zakharov himself. Apparently, he also haven't the notability. Is it soap opera too? Анна Волкова (talk)


 * You should not blame Russian government for the fact that your hero Mr. Nikolayev is not a scientist: he has not got PhD, he does not belong to academia, he does not teach at a university, his Shakespeare encyclopedia is not a scientific edition (it is published by Eksmo, they never deal with any kind of science except the science of money counting). And, by the way, by insisting that the article published under the name of Nikolayev is not written by him, and by informing us about Nikolayev's lawsuits (no news about this lawsuit has been published) you admit in fact that you are here on behalf of Nikolayev himself (or rather that you are Nikolayev, as I believe). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - without getting into all the drama, searches did not turn up enough to show this article meets the notability criteria, plain and simple. Perhaps there are sources in Cyrillic language papers that my search engines aren't showing, but until they can be used as references for this article, simply delete.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Romanenko, why do you report wrong information? You wrote that Mr. Nikolayev does not teach at a university. No, he is the graduate of Russian State Humanitarian University. And other... You don't know the information about him (I don't want to say that you lie), and the administrators of en.wikipedia can (or can't) believe you. Eksmo published (together with other publishing houses) scientific encyclopedia about Mikhail Bulgakov, scientific encyclopedia about Nikolay Gogol, scientific encyclopedia about Fyodor Dostoevsky. I can confirm it if this is necessary but it is clear - if the encyclopedia isn't scientific, Shakespeare Commitee of the Russian Academy never discussed it. Now Eksmo is main publishing house in Russia, and Eksmo published Mr. Nikolayev's historical novel. Viktor Porotnikov has been published in Eksmo some historical novels (I read his historical duologue and his other novel). And I can (oh!) find short article about Mr. Porotnikov in ru.wikipedia. But I also find the article about unfamous writer Tamara Alexeeva. She owns a factory. I can't find the notes in her biography.

You broke the rules in ru.wikipedia (it is a fact), and you do it here. You wrote that I am "here on behalf of Nikolayev himself" or rather I "am" Nikolayev, so you bring unproven accusations. Yes, I'm aсquainted with Mr. Nikolayev, and you must remember it. It is not the violation of the rules. I know from him about lawsuit (these news really has been published). I keep the rules of Wikipedia, and I'm not going to claim that you wrote fulsified article. But it is fact that after the beginning of lawsuit you wanted to delete this article. Most probably that it is a coincidence. I think that you knew about this article so late but I can be wrong in my assuptions. I wrote higher that I'm not call the name of real author.

Now I want to write the article about Nikolay Zakharov (I suspect that Russian Wikipedia will not wait it).

Onel5969, you can read on English about the book in the Library of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Анна Волкова (talk)


 * 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.