From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ivan Katchanovski

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ivan Katchanovski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf ( talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations, [1] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability?  — Michael  Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted) [2] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete.  — Michael  Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October.  — Michael  Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met.  — Michael  Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36. [3]
"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.
"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.
"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.
"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.
"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.
"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.
Widely quoted in Google Books. [4]
Widely quoted in Google News. [5]
I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.
I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF).  — Michael  Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.”  — Michael  Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:
Mhorg ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi ( talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf ( talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [25]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf ( talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus ( talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Generating dismisinformation [26] can add him some notability notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg ( talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes ( talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf ( talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [27] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus ( talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [28]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus ( talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What then would be satisfying? Marcelus ( talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution. Nangaf ( talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivan_Katchanovski_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1165140828"