Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Rikov

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Rikov

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

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

This one sentence biography, and lacks WP:SIGCOV with one passing mention reference. The Polish language article is unreferenced. After searching, could not locate sufficient reliable sources. Created on 27 April 2012. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "passing mention reference" is false: it is a reference to a published obituary of the subject (whose actual text I unfortunately have not found). The nominator also appears to have ignored the edit summary in my unprod that his journal editorship gives him a claim to WP:PROF#C8 (which needs to be evaluated with respect to the possible significance of the journal he edited). I didn't find citations for his works that might be used to pass #C1, but there may be a language barrier. I also found what appears to be a review of a posthumous collection of his works [1]; one review wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR, but it's a start. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein - Sorry, this is first time with AfD that I saw the WP:Prof#C8 and misunderstood importance of that. Wondering if I should withdraw nomination? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wait until consensus becomes clearer? It is genuinely not obvious to me whether he should be considered to pass #C8, or whether we have enough sourcing for some other kind of notability. That's why my unprod message also suggested the need for a full discussion, which you have now started. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm working on adding in all of the publications. Appears to pass WP:Academic as I understand it. OIM20 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add "all of the publications". See WP:NOTCV. A selected list of significantly influential publications (around five of them) can be appropriate, but except in very rare circumstances (which this is not) we should not try to include a complete list of publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't know enough about him or the field of linguistics to say which ones are the most influential. Limit to the ones that have the most citations via Google Scholar? OIM20 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can or should the long list of publications be created as a "List of Georgi Rikov publictions" article? I know almost nothing of topic of the author's works so unable to evaluate how significant contributions they are. Just curious if a list might be helpful here to reduce article length. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not the right place for hosting long lists of publications of minor academics. Again, see WP:NOT. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publishing a few scientific papers and working as a researcher is not a prof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's published 100 papers per the bibliography linked in the article. I was told not to list them all, so I put that it was a select bibliography and stopped. I'm afraid I'm confused as to what warrants notability for academics because his body of work seems to warrant an article as I understand the guidelines. But if you're correct, then I don't understand them.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read through all of his articles to determine exactly his particular field and since he was in Bulgaria, I don't have access to their publications that would cover this field outside of publishing the research directly. Nor do I actually speak or read Bulgarian - I've been using a translation program as an aid. OIM20 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as an academic. There’s a clear language and digital barrier to finding more sources, but there appears to be enough to pass. Thriley (talk) 00:54, 8 January 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.