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. Marginally notable (at best) figure who requests deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Alex Zhavoronkov

Alex Zhavoronkov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability at all in the article - zero RS evidence of third-party notability; if cut to RSes it would have literally zero text left. Very little evidence in Google News - press releases, passing mentions in news articles. This needs RSes actually about the subject to have anything to talk about at all. PROD was contested without the issues being addressed. Needs RSes actually about the subject to survive. David Gerard ( talk) 12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete total failure of any notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Dr Zhavoronkov emailed me about the deletion notice. I explained the problems with the article - that there's nothing substantive to base an article on, and that WP:BLP absolutely requires that as a hard rule - also gave him links to WP:RS and WP:PROF - and invited him to comment here if he has, e.g., a list of proper press links or something that would pass Wikipedia sourcing and notability muster - David Gerard ( talk) 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Most links and referencdes in this article have not been updated since 2014. I added several more recent ones, added the PubMed links, Google Scholar. Since 2014 the subject published and co-authored over 40 research articles and received multiple awards. https://venturebeat.com/2017/04/23/nvidia-identifies-the-top-5-ai-startups-for-social-impact/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 ( talk) 11:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: We added the conferences and editorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.170.58 ( talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 ( significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). He may be getting started, relatively speaking, but already has enough for WP notability.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The certain number of media publications about Dr Zhavoronkov was added with the corresponding links. These publications clearly meet the criteria of WP notability as substantial and popular secondary resources. Here is a part of them: Huffington Post, ^[1] Financial Times Pensions Expert, ^[2] Next Avenue, ^[3] and New Scientist. ^[4]. As well, the primary sources were replaced by proper secondary sources also contributing the fit to WP notability guideline. According to these changes, the raised issues about WP notability guidelines and references to primary sources can be successfully solved and closed. Anton Krotov ( talk) 14:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Three of those are blog posts written by the subject, the fourth is paywalled with no visible byline and is marked "comment". Writing for media outlets is generally not considered evidence of Wikipedia notability - David Gerard ( talk) 15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 ( significant impact in scientific discipline and scholarly discipline, broadly construed). With 108 verified scientific publications in refereed scientific journals and the scientific, humanitarian, moral and humanitarian, economic, geopolitical, and existential significance of biogerontology and in silico and aging research, the article Dr. Zhavaronkov MUST be maintained (and perhaps developed further). What may be needful is a collegial assessment of the importance of Dr. Zhavaronkov's scientific and other ideas, but that's not typically the forte of Wikipedia editors. MaynardClark ( talk) 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I have concerns over WP:PROF criterion #1. Nearly all of Alex's scholarly publications are joint publications, with as many as a dozen contributors. I couldn't find any examples of him being the Lead Investigator (I may have overlooked some). His books seem to me to be popularizations of work in the field (not necessarily his work, rather than scholarly contributions. This is also true of the popular press references, which may well derive from press packets and publisher propaganda, rather than from serious evaluation. In the business of evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure in academia, where I have extensive experience, these would be red flags. In fact, at no point in the article is an effort made to explain exactly what the nature of his contribution is, that makes him so notable. The company he founded seems to have no company (officers, directors, managers) other than himself. If the article ends up being kept, I would certainly recommend that it be tagged with the template: "like resume". -- Vicedomino ( talk) 16:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I would like to see a resume online somewhere, which would be accessible through the article. However, a Google 'search' for just his name comes up with "About 147,000 results" in 0.75 seconds. MaynardClark ( talk) 16:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

In biomedical sciences the lead author/group leader is usually the last. Most of the research papers you see in PubMed list Alex Zhavoronkov as the corresponding author.

I pay no attention to unsigned comments, nor should anyone else. I disbelieve the statement. -- Vicedomino ( talk) 22:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Uncertain. Probably not notable. An analysis of the google scholar page shows only one are articles with citation over 100, and it is a review article, not a research article--and such articles characteristically have abnormally high citation counts. Of his research articles, I see counts of 91,73, 67 49, 48 67 , which in the extremely highly cited field he works in, is borderline for notability . His association as editor of a rather dubious journal does not add to notability . But, Vicedomino, it is almost universal for experimental work in the biomedical sciences to have multiple authors, and it is in fact true that either the first or last position usually represents the senior author, who is very often the head of the laboratory. As a rough gudie, a singe-authored publication in this field is likely to be more speculation than research. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Considering the number of waffle words (almost universal, usually represents, very often, rough guide), I don't see how these statistical surveys can have any sort of value. One commentator calls him a "corresponding author". Where is their bench in the laboratory? -- Vicedomino ( talk) 02:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Friends, thanks for your help, but please let it be deleted, the page is not worth your time. And I took the time to create a profile here to stop this distraction. I also asked my team members to stop any attempts to rescue or improve this page.

After a brief correspondence with the requesting editor David Gerard, it was clear that the request to delete came after our PR around the paper on AI and blockchain. A quick web search shows that David is an opponent of blockchain technology and I respect him and his view, since 99% of these projects are of fraudulent nature and I also do not like Bitcoin (while the technology itself is very useful as a distributed ledger). The work he is doing is valuable, since pseudo science, alternative medicine and "anti-aging" using ancient methods are a substantial problem in several fields my team is active in. We also do work in this area by trying to collect the data from the nutraceutical industry to understand what may have some positive effects and what does not using systems like Young.AI, but it will take a year or two before we may be able to publish. But evaluating human biases is another interesting area and we published non-peer reviewed paper on that Diversity prepub and NewScientist covered it. I would really like to expand this work into evaluating the various biases in Wikipedia when I get a bit more time. Some of these biases may be subconscious and not driven by any tangible reward function. I will create a presentation slide to see if anyone would like to collaborate. If you know any veteran editors or scientists, who are intimately familiar with the Wikipedia ecosystem and the MediaWiki platform, who would like to get involved, contact me to collaborate. It may be 3-12 months project. Uncovering the individual biases and group biases using AI is a very interesting subject and we are using the data from the International Aging Research Portfolio to do study scientific bias and the reasons why many clinical trials fail. To address some of the comments on this page:

• 1. Most of our papers are not in Beal-list journals and some of the journals on this list got there because of some of the flaws in the past. Aging has a peer review process where sometimes you get 6 reviews back. And what is important is who publishes in the journal. Many of the top-rated scientists in the aging field do publish there from time to time.
• 2. I do not have a bench in a lab since 2007. We are a bioinformatics/AI group. And we always promote the young scientists, who do the work as first authors.
• 3. Regarding the press releases on our papers. I genuinely think that it is important to popularize research and technology innovation in every way, shape or form. Otherwise, people will talk only about the current president, Kim Kardashian and other topics that are distracting the attention from the elephant in the room - age-related diseases and the dire state of the global economy. I explained my views on science PR in a presentation at the bottom of this interview recent interview. It also has a brief introduction to quantified altruism. In my opinion, there is no greater good than extending productive longevity for everyone on the planet, but most people have very different objective functions.

No hidden agenda here. It would be great to have the page taken down. What would help is a separate non-wiki website to track the conferences we present at or organize list of talks and conferences. AlexZhavoronkov ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete I believe Wikipedia:PROF is the right measure, and reading DGG's analysis I'd say borderline so weak delete or keep, but considering a BLP with sourcing issues it's delete. Widefox; talk 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, though suggest discussing redirecting to Beauty.AI, which would be a relevant target. @Rob talk 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I added the fresh references to the articles published this week. Removed the exaggerated claims referencing to the articles in New Scientist, Huffington Post and Pensions Expert published by Zavoronkov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywired ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete fails WP:PROF and his business activity is not the focus of sufficient independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Jytdog ( talk) 23:01, 10 December 2017 (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.