Ivan Katchanovski: His sole claim on public attention is as the origin of a WP:FRINGE theory that the Maidan massacre was a false flag operation.  The conspiracy theory has subsequently been disseminated by Russian propaganda sources.  The biographical article on Katchanovski is a WP:COATRACK for this contentious political viewpoint, and should be subsumed into the main article on Maidan casualties , should anything be worth rescuing.  Nangaf ( talk ) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been re-nominated for deletion as previous discussions did not reach consensus.  Since those discussions, further developments have rendered Katchanovski's conspiracy theory even more dubious: most notably, that a Ukrainian court has determined that 40 of the 48 dead were shot by the Berkut, and that causes of the remaining 8 deaths cannot be conclusively determined.  Nangaf ( talk ) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies.  I show below the most cited: Quoted in Google Scholar 1664 times, with h-index 22 and i10-index 36.  [6] " The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine? " Cited 151 times.  " The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less "  Cited 133 times.  " Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006 "  Cited 95 times.  " The future of private sector unions in the US "  Cited 85 times.  " Divergence in growth in post-communist countries "  Cited 84 times.  " Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama "  Cited 80 times.  Widely quoted in Google Books.  [7] Widely quoted in Google News.  [8] Over the past year, he has been the main source for the Yaroslav Hunka scandal , and has been quoted all over the world.  [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] All important Western sources mention him frequently: The Guardian [22] [23] The New York Post [24] Reuters [25] Al Jazeera [26] Associated Press [27] The Washington Post [28] CBC.ca [29] The Nation [30] [31] France 24 [32] Radio Free Europe [33] [34] Radio Canada International [35] [36] Le Figaro [37] [38] The Forward [39] National Post [40] The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [41] Courthouse News Service [42] Die Weltwoche [43] La Razón (Madrid) [44] CTV News [45] [46] [47] CP24 [48] Panorama (magazine) [49] -- Mhorg ( talk ) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) Academic citations are not sufficient evidence of academic notability: Katchanovski does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC .  (2) Press citations are not evidence of notability: this is a biographical article, yet none of the pieces you mention are about Katchanovski himself.  Nangaf ( talk ) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Yes, his work was cited, although not necessarily "favorably".  Does it mean he is notable enough?  This is a replay of previous nominations .  There is only one difference right now: the subject of the page has strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the BLP page about him.  Well, if he feels this page should be deleted, I think it would be fair to agree and delete.  But if he wants to keep it, let's keep.  I know, this is not really a policy-based argument.  Personally, I do not see anything wrong with keeping or deleting this page, whatever.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, there is a section of WP:BLPDELETE which discusses the wishes of the subject as being a consideration.  Such wishes can be used as a tie-breaker, much the way you are arguing, if I understand what you are saying.  jps ( talk ) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see.  This is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relatively_unknown_subjects : Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.  Based on that, I would encourage the subject (who currently edits as an IP) to request to "delete" or "keep" their BLP page, whichever they prefer.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this discussion terminates without consensus once again, then that could come into play.  Personally, I do not doubt that the IP user is who he claims to be.  Nangaf ( talk ) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on his comments, he will want to keep the page to promote himself and his ideas.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My Very Best Wishes and Nangaf deliberately flood my biographical Wikipedia article and talk page with deliberately false and libelous information against me as a Ukrainian scholar in retaliation for my peer-reviewed article that mentioned their systematic whitewashing of contemporary far-right, including their involvement in the Maidan massacre, and whitewashing of Nazi collaborators and mass murderers in Ukraine.  They libelously and falsely call my peer-reviewed articles “conspiracy theory.”  They deliberately omit my peer-reviewed studies and their favorable reviews by over 100 scholars, experts, and media.  They deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent findings of the Maidan massacre trial verdict even after I provided specific parts of Maidan massacre trial verdict and media sources showing specific parts of the verdict confirming findings of my studies.  They libelously and falsely link me to Putin.  None of my information and reliable sources that I provided was included in the article and none of the false and libelous claims were removed even after I provided all the sources.  Nangaf responded saying “sue us.”  In addition to been libelous, such deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of sources qualifies as fraud in academia.  They also deleted any favorable information, such as my prediction of the Russia-Ukraine war and my calls for EU membership of Ukraine.  The article also deliberately omitted my role in in the SS Galicia veteran in the Canadian parliament scandal, my previous affiliation with Harvard University, that I one of the most cited political scientists specializing in Ukrainian politics and conflicts, and that mt research-based interviews, publications, and comments appeared in thousands of media reports.  Either remove the libelous and false information about me or delete my article immediately.  I always told my students to never use Wikipedia for such reasons.  Ivan Katchanovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.47.71 ( talk ) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I actually removed "conspiracy theory" in my recent edit [50] , even though it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy allegedly committed by Maidan leadership.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libelous and false claims calling my academic studies "a conspiracy theory" were posted on my article and talk pages and various other Wikipedia pages, and remain there with the exception of this edit.  The article deliberately includes only all the negative sources that they could find.  174.92.47.71 ( talk ) 03:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You claim to be Katchanovski.  You have requested that the article be deleted, if various criteria are not met.  These facts may be relevant to the current discussion.  The accusations you have made are not, and may contravene Wikipedia policy.  They have been reported.  Nangaf ( talk ) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meh .  Here's another one of these discussions where h-index and Google search arguments are thrown around without much contextualization.  I really don't care for how many Google Scholar hits someone has: if one can prove that a scholar is cited a few times and indicate how that citation takes place, then there's an argument, a much stronger one than "oh this guy has 1664 hits".  Look at those hits closely, and one finds that (as is frequent in for instance sociology) these citations are just that--citations in long lists of other citations (the usual boring literature review), with no actual work being cited or assessed.  Sure, he's cited a bunch, and those citations prove he's got a job etc., but if he's going to be notable via NPROF you can't just say "he was cited": you have to prove that his work was meaningful.  That really goes for passing the GNG as well.  Drmies ( talk ) 02:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Bog-standard citation index--if this counts as notable for academics then almost anyone at a research university is getting a Wikipedia article.  AugusteBlanqui ( talk ) 10:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No evidence given this subject satisfies NPROF or GNG.  Per the above comments, a list of Google Scholar hits without any context doesn't prove much.  Also of note is that the WP:BURDEN for establishing verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and I would argue, in this case, wants to keep a BLP about someone who probably isn't notable.  I also want to add that what the article subject himself wishes isn't especially pertinent to a deletion discussion, and we don't keep BLPs just to spite the article subject when they are angry with us and making demands.  - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:02, 16 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete