Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Katchanovski

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. (non-admin closure) – 333 -blue at 06:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Two somewhat well-cited items (155, 120), the rest is fairly unremarkable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he meets WP:SCHOLAR:

On Google Scholar he has cited 1431 times.[1]

This piece is cited 115 times [2]

This one is cited 120 times [3]

This one is cited 86 times [4]

This one is cited 85 times [5]

This one 74 times [6]

This one 63 times [7]

This one 62 times [8]

This one 53 times [9]

And so on...

He is author of a book and co-author of 2 other books.[10]

I know this is not an issue to focus on too much, but there are articles by academics that barely show up on Google Scholar, so I don't understand why question Katchanovksi. For example Bohdan Ben [11] Mhorg (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with this. You say this one [is cited] 53 times [12]? How come? This say 9 citations, not 53. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine is cited 58 times according to this -->[13] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked link by Mhorg above, and it shows "9 citations" (right upper corner). My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means that this article cites nine others. Nothing about the number of other articles that cite this one, which is what concerns us at Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we might need more references Mhorg if that is to be kept. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Google Schoolar says. I assume that not all academic content databases are aligned and some contain certain publications and others do not. However, Google Scholar is a tool that helps us understand how much an academic is cited, famous, etc. Mhorg (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a creator of this page you should not vote here and should not do this [14]. Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that the creator of the article could not vote. Can you provide wiki link about this rule? The same applies to the 'Publications' section, which I see is present on other articles (Tetiana_Starodub#List_of_major_works).

About WP:SOAPBOX which of the five points would concern me? Mhorg (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be there, and I just fixed it. That page is another candidate for an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it's expected that you'd vote keep, you are absolutely allowed to vote @Mhorg. @My very best wishes is incorrect in that assertion. Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - [15] obviously - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of these, including the most WP:RS (the WaPo article), are articles or guest articles written by, not about, the subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing justifies his notability (e.g. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") - at least as written. ~~I might change my vote if the page is properly re-written so that the notability of the subject would be clear.~~ He does have a number of publications, but what is his citation index? Here, an H-index of 20. I am not sure that alone justifies his significant impact to the field. What are his actual achievements to be included to the page? Quickly looking at his papers [16], he describes shooting the protesters by snipers during Revolution of Dignity as a false flag operation by Right sector (a conspiracy theory promoted by Russian propaganda). That is why his views are cited [17] by the infamous Sputnik (news agency). Hence, he might be notable for that, but this is not clear from the current version of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn’t know that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to his own summary [18], he came to such conclusion by analyzing "about 1,500 (150 Gigabytes) of videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts by mass media and social media in different countries" using "a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality". That sounds fishy to me, but perhaps he is right: that conspiracy theory was propagated so widely in social networks that it became predominant there. Then, he is saying this is true as a predominant view (the "bandwagon fallacy"), even though he frames it differently (due to lack of time, I am not going investigate any deeper; this is Social Science Research Network, not a peer reviewed publication). Then, Sputnik cites him again as a confirmation that the conspiracy theory was true. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Kuzio, whose research interest probably matches Katchanowski fairly closely (that is, ukraine + democratization) in one of his own recent books mentioned Katchanowski briefly and his work investigating the Feb 20, 2014 shootings:

https://www.e-ir.info/2020/12/02/academic-orientalism-in-russia-ukraine-scholarship/

"[Katchanowski's] work reflects that of a political technologist more than that of a scholar through his highly selective compilation of sources gleaned from conspiratorial corners of the Internet and YouTube"

for context, Paul D'Anieri, describes the event as:

There is considerable speculation concerning who was shooting at whom on February 20. There have been allegations that a “third force” was shooting at both sides, trying to spur on the conflict, from high in the Hotel Ukraina, overlooking Instytutska Street and the Maidan. Some point to Georgians, some to Ukrainians, and some to Russians. The chaos of the day and the intense efforts at disinformation that have ensued have made it impossible to disconfirm these theories. The most sophisticated effort to address the issue, carried out at Carnegie Mellon University, found conclusively that at least some of the protestors on Instytutska Street were killed by Berkut forces on the ground

Kuzio does mention some well known russia studies scholars that cite Katchanowski's theory (sakwa, cohen). of course, it's not surprising that russian media seemed to have gravitated to this particular narrative Cononsense (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wants to discredit Katchanovski by linking him to Russian propaganda, but without knowing the positions of this academic. For example, here,[19] against general opinion, he believes that the Ukrainian Svoboda party is not "fascist or neo-Nazi or overtly anti-Semitic." Strange statement for a 'Kremlin propagandist'. Please, let's limit the comments to his notability and leave aside the fact that some users like or dislike the results of his studies.--Mhorg (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not sure yet if he should have an article. A bunch of our articles cite him, but I'm not sure if all of the texts by him which we cite are reliable (e.g. non-peer-reviewed conference papers). Having a page on him will enable readers to see who we're citing, but only if we include secondary sources saying who he is. I'm unclear which of the WP:SCHOLAR criteria advocates are arguing he meets. If we're going with The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. what would be the discipline? His heavily cited work[20] is by Seymour Martin Lipset and Noah M. Meltz with Rafael Gomez and Ivan Katchanovski, and it's about trade unions in Canada. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. For example, something like this is WP:SPS. My opinion: if a presumably scholar was unable to publish his paper in a peer reviewed journal, this is something really problematic, and should generally not be used for sourcing anywhere, even though WP:RS allows this in some cases. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources mentioned above satisfy the requirement of meeting the said notability guidelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because he is cited doesn't mean he's notable. He hasn't won any major awards and is only at his Universtiy part time https://www2.uottawa.ca/about-us/media/need-expert-russias-war-ukraine. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mid-level teacher at a mid-level Canadian university. Zero sources in Canadian google and gnews. Some hits as an author in Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How you missed this Canadian source? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has written quite a few articles and got some citations and coverage, but not sure it's quite enough for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOLAR having his work cited by CBC.ca,[21] People's World,[22] Jacobin (magazine),[23] a Routledge publication,[24] Al Mayadeen,[25] and other reliable sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was certainly cited. Moreover, his citation H-index is 20 (see above), which is not bad for a typical researcher. I just doubt this alone justifies his notability, e.g. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". One needs reviews of his works by independent 3rd party sources about him that make not-trivial coverage of his work and say: he made such and such significant impact to the field as opposed to saying "[Katchanowski's] work reflects that of a political technologist more than that of a scholar through his highly selective compilation of sources gleaned from conspiratorial corners of the Internet and YouTube (see quotation by someone above).My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to meet WP:GNG than WP:NSCHOLAR I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mhorg, GizzyCatBella and Rediscoverbharat. Meets WP:NSCHOLAR contrary to nom's claim. desmay (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR [26], he might satisfy #1? But if he made an impact to his field, then what exactly was his impact? Which novel concepts did he develop? What did he discover? My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. My position of the notability of this particular scholar is not as strong as before. Weak keep. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. None of the sources cover Katchanovski or his work "directly and in detail" which would be a requirement of passing either WP:SIGCOV or the pertinent criteria at WP:NPROF. As it is, the sources are merely using Katchanovski as a political commentator rather than actually examining his scholarship and providing any sort of analysis. Without any sort of critical engagement or review of his work as a scholar, I don't think we can claim notability through GNG or through any SNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just searched for reviews of his books in Wikipedia Library and found three, he therefore surpasses the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. I updated the article accordingly. I stopped after three, as only two are needed. CT55555 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing of substance found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) I've already voted.[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.