Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Macheret

Sergey Macheret

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

Sergey Macheret (edit | 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)

As the article's subject, I'd like to request that the article be deleted.

I am a non-notable, private person, and so the article about me does not meet the notability criteria.

Specifically:

1. This BLP article is already designated as low-importance one. Indeed, although I have made contributions to my field, numerous individuals who have made much more significant and impactful contributions do not have their Wikipedia pages. Although I have been elected a Fellow of AIAA, my professional society, overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages. There are hundreds, if not thousands, people in my field who are much more famous, have much higher citation counts, are Fellows of one or more professional societies and Members of the highly prestigious National Academy of Engineering or National Academy of Inventors (of which I am not a Member), and have no Wikipedia pages. For example: Prof. Richard B. Miles, Texas A&M University (formerly of Princeton U.), Prof. Mark J. Kushner (U. of Michigan), Prof. Graham Candler (U. of Minnesota), Prof. Alexander A. Fridman (Drexel U.), and many, many others. In short, I believe that my notability is too low for a Wikipedia BLP article.

2. My 'notoriety' stems from the single offence described in the current article as Legal Issues. However, all that notoriety is due to initial police-made accusation of dealing drugs, which was immediately interpreted by the media as a real-life case of "Breaking Bad" TV series. When these bogus accusations of drug dealing disappeared (they were never filed in court rather than "dropped") and only a single misdemeanor offence remained, national and international media immediately lost all interest. Only local media, i.e. a student-run newspaper, a small-town newspaper, and a local TV station reported on the developments since then. As it is, the single misdemeanor offence certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMacheret (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and subject's request. "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "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." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." — Maile (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subject's request. 1000% agree with David Epstein above, though. Qflib (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay with me to keep given the changes below. Qflib (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because we are a volunteer project, articles get written when people find the time and enthusiasm to write them, and so there are many topics which could have articles but don't. Many notable books are lacking articles; many biographies that should be written haven't been. So, the statement in the deletion request that the overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages does not itself matter one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue for a keep, but expunge the legal issues per WP:DUE (and revdel them). He's known for his work in physics, not legal issues that only made local news at best. If that can't be done, then delete per the request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The part in the rationale about the overwhelming majority of AIAA Fellows not having an article does have a point beyond WP:WAX that I find convincing: because we are so far from having a complete list, another missing article will not make much of a significant gap in our coverage. Therefore, although I do think he meets our standards for notability, that cannot justify keeping up an attack page, and I think it is borderline enough that we can allow the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to go through. If we ever get to a point where this article is needed to complete the list, or his notability becomes less borderline, we can revisit the case and if necessary create an article without the attack content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and the AIAA Fellow now that the BLPREQUESTDELETE issues appear to be resolved. Google Scholar found some 14 publications with triple-digit citation counts, eight as first author, so I think there is also a good case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've deleted all the revisions I found that contained a mention of the irrelevant legal issues, and EC-protected the page. Please ping me if I've missed any offending revisions. @SMacheret: is the current version acceptable to you? If so, please let us know that you're withdrawing your objection, and we can then decide the fate of the article based on notability merits. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This version still contains the irrelevant legal issues, just as a paragraph in the Biography section rather than as a separate section. If you can work with the latest version that existed before your revision and delete the section Legal Issues in it, that would work for me. Otherwise, I would ask again to just delete the article. SMacheret (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my apologies, SMacheret. How is the current revision? I prefer not to edit any of the deleted, later revisions, since we might then have an attribution problem. Hopefully this one can be the basis for further improvements. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This can indeed be the basis for further improvements, which would be fine with me. Deleting the entire article would be also fine with me, if such is the decision as a result of this discussion. SMacheret (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. @Maile66, Xxanthippe, Qflib, and David Eppstein: with the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect of the nomination withdrawn, will you be revising your !vote? Owen× ☎ 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the BLP issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the subject/nomination, relisting this for any added insight on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]