Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andriy Slyusarchuk

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 Keep. While English language sources are preferred, that does not in any way shape or form invalidate non-English sources, indeed we should resist such systemic bias when evaluating an article. Also, the truth of this man's claims or the tone the article is written in are not reasons to delete. Failing to meet the bar of WP:N is a reason to delete, and that does not seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Slyusarchuk[edit]

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

Unscientific, untrustable mostly foreign language sources, lots of links to Russian and Ukraining webpages, npov, person not relevant, claims not true, misleading, stating world records that are not accepted (nor true) Memoryexpert de (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think all these accusations are true. There's no PoV or my own original research in the info I add to the articles. The fragments I add about Andriy Slyusarchuk are based on press information, as well as the references to the official site of President of Ukraine ( http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/14234.html ), as well as the Official Book of Records of Ukraine ( http://www.book.adamant.ua/akt/2slysar4uk/1.htm ). It's a person's own choice whether he/she wishes to participate in World Memory Championships or not. And if he/she does not wish to do so, or does not know about this Championship, or does not / can not participate because of some other reason, this fact is not enough to debunk any of the claims about his/her records, especially if these records were witnessed by numerous professors and scientists during numerous demonstrations (please take your time to translate and study the refs I included before making further conclusions). In any case, as I stated on the article talk page, the overwhelming amount of press information both in Russian and Ukrainian media (TV, Radio, Press, Internet) about this person is more than enough to make an article about him, even if he would have been a proven charlatan (which is not a fact, so far). NazarK (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDear NazarK, I understand your opinion but stillt have two comments for others to judge: First Your main interest in Wikipedia during the last year is this guy. You wrote the article and set links in multiple other articles, which already got reverted on the Pi page. You state yourself, that you are from the same town as this person and know some of the judges of his attempts pretty well. This reduces your neutrality. Of course you are still allowed to have and name your opinion, but you just reverted changes, something that is not a good thing to do. The sources given are nearly 100% Ukrainian and Russian. But this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore those reference do not qualify, nor do poorly translated texts on small, unreliable English webpages. Of course noone has to take part at the World Memory Championships and that he does not is not a proof. But you can see, that many people with proven superior memory abilities to part in these controlled tests and the best of them all memorized 405 digits in five minutes. Then using your common sense you can see, that Andriy Slyusarchuk did not memorize 5100 digits in two minutes. I am sorry for the Ukrainian president, if he believes this guy. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the World Memory Championship, my best guess is Andriy Slyusarchuk simply does not know anything about it. And he's not a very rich person, as far as I know. I'd suggest you to send him an official invitation, challenging him to participate (you can contact him, for example, via L'viv State University of Modern Technologies and Management http://www.ldi.lviv.ua/navtchalnyj_proces/r2_np_kafedra_zahalnych_jurydytchnych_dyscyplin.php ). I'd expect him to come, especially if you offer him travel and participation costs reimbursement. In any case, you'll have an opportunity to reliably debunk his claims, or we'll get a brand new champion. :) NazarK (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And about my neutrality... The judges of his claims are the respectable scientists, professors, and academicians of my city (the city of L'viv, which is about 1 million population and one of the major scientific centers of Ukraine). They are well known not only by me, but also by tens of thousands of students, other scientists, and general public, as these people are the heads of departments of major National Universities and Institutes, located in my city. I don't think that gives you enough reason to say I'm not being neutral enough...

The trick about his memory abilities, as I was able to find out, is that he does remember only the image, and his memory does not include any logical analysis or processing of the information he remembers. In fact, it requires a significant effort for him to successfully restore and read out from his memory the right fragment of the image he recorded into his memory. That is why, in my opinion, he's not able to read out from his memory very quickly, and that is probably the reason why this photographic memory does not help him to successfully learn numerous foreign languages. I think it is unlikely that he is a total charlatan, in light of the very large number of independent highly educated witnesses, who verified his abilities.

In any case, I did my best to create a neutral encyclopedic article about this person. I don't mind if someone finds out and reliably proves that he is a charlatan (though personally I do not believe this to be likely). I'm sorry many links are Ukrainian and Russian. I did include some English links too, as far as I was able. I believe the phenomenon of the person (either a possible charlatan or a gifted eidetic) is unique and deserves its place in the English wikipedia. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The absurd claims in this article have been of concern to me for some time, but however much I disbelieve them (see Andriy Slyusarchuk and 30 million digits of π) I think that he passes the notability test. The article is in better condition than it was a few months ago, but it still needs a lot of cleaning up. I think that improving the article would be a better option than simply deleting it. BabelStone (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check the article talk page and this discussion on my own talk page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NazarK#Andriy_Slyusarchuk . Thank you for your patience and understanding. NazarK (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat criteria let him pass the notability test? There are about no English sources. There are many people, who have been on national TV programs in their countries, but that does not make them interesting for Wikipedia, exspecially not the English one. If I claim to be able to name 1 bllion digits of Pi and do a fake performance, I will most likely find some TV programs and internet "news" to talk about that - is that enough to make me notable? Is a fictional CV given by himself enough to be notable? Where are the proofs of him passing high medical schools tests by the age of 12? Do I have to add some more abstruse claims and say I can read peoples minds? Mabye his claim, that he is pretty good in using hypnosis and can make people believe everything is actually substancial. Just spotted following discussions: User_talk:Amilnerwhite, User talk:World citoyen,User talk:66.114.10.106,Talk:Piphilology. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please also note the very high ammount of foreign language links on this article. And then tell me, getting outside links to Ukrainian and Russian pages was not intended by the authors. Without those links, there is about no source left. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no prohibition against non-English sources in WP:RS. The article does need a massive clean-up, preferably by editors who speak Russian, but the person appears to be notable. Wine Guy Talk 02:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the time that an article gets to this stage it is required to have demonstrated notability explicily and manifestly. I can't see that this has done in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: per Naz. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is: People read his records and that some Ukrainians approved it and believe it, because they do not know, that they are not possible. Those who actually know about memory records know, that this records are not possible. His "Pi record" is 250x better than the real one, his "speed-digits record" still 32 times better. If any Ukrainian claimed to have run a marathon in 3.8 minutes (32 better than the real world record) and some Ukrainian Webpages say its true, still noone would allow an article with this claims to exist in the English Wikipedia. Just because not so many people know the real memory records does not change the issue. His claims insult the real record holders and are riddiculous. Therefore they should not stand. Some people already deleted his claims where everbody know they are not true (see articles history), f.e. mind-reading. But his other claims are not at all more reliable. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-comment. If you check the internationally registered records of memorized Pi digits over the last few decades ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiDigits.svg ) you can see that the registered record number has increased over 100x since 1970's. It can not be compared to the physical performance in a marathon (which has obvious limitations), because it is commonly known (and also scientifically confirmed) that we use only a very small fraction of the actual abilities of our mind. We don't really know the limits of what we can memorize and perform with our minds. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's also a little synthesis of what I've read on various forums and other published reports of people who contacted Andriy Slyusarchuk and tried to learn his methods (I don't add this to the main article, because it seems too close to personal analysis of the case). As I said before, the guy is strongly weird. There's not much logic in what he does. He's irrational (and, accordingly to him, that is one of the main keys to an outstanding eidetic memory; btw, he says that in order to memorize the smallest details of what you perceive you have to stop analyzing it; your analysis is what steals your attention and limits your memory; he compares his memory to the memory of a person during some catastrophe, or a terrible, shocking accident, when people are able to perceive the flow of time very slowly, and with very high intensity, memorizing every smallest detail; he says his perception has been like that continuously and permanently since his very early childhood). He supposedly has a few students, who are working on mastering his memorizing techniques. One of them (his name is Oleksandr Chervonyy, he's a student of National University "L'viv Polytechnic") is said to be rather successful, in that he was able to memorize a substantial amount of Pi digits as well, though not as many as A.S. himself... NazarK (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (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.