Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 18

Alex Zhavoronkov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was properly deleted on 12 December 2017, based on a consensus that the subject was "marginally notable" at the time and, pivotally, based on the subject having requested deletion of the article himself. While this outcome was clearly correct at the time, circumstances have changed substantially in the intervening 5+ years. I therefore request restoration of so that I can move it to draftspace to develop the article in light of substantial post-deletion sources. As a procedural note, I previously undeleted this article to draft and then restored it to mainspace, but re-deleted it upon request pursuant to an objection based on circumstances outlined below. I formally proposed undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and was directed here.

Subject's increased notability

• In the 2017 deletion discussion, our late friend User:DGG noted in a comment (and User:Widefox referenced in their !vote) that of the subject's articles, "only one are articles with citation over 100". As of 2023, however, the subject's Google Scholar profile and Researchgate profile demonstrate (per the charts at the top right of each) that the subject has since increased in academic impact by orders of magnitude, going from fewer than 1,800 total citations prior to 2018 to over 10,000 citations today, over 2,000 citations in each of the past three years, and with 32 articles having over 100 citations, including several articles each having multiple hundreds of citations.
• At the same time, from 2018 to 2023, there have been dozens of news articles and other sources discussing the subject to some degree. In addition to their substantially increased academic impact, the subject has recently published an additional book in their field, and has received additional media coverage for their business and other non-academic activities, including:
  • ISBN 978-1982121709
    .
  • WP:SELFPUB
    )
  • Smith, Wesley J. (February 8, 2023). "Harvesting Clones to Live Forever Would Be Monstrous". National Review. (criticizing Zhavoronkov's endorsement of cloning human bodies for parts)
  • Field, Hayden (June 29, 2023). "The first fully A.I.-generated drug enters clinical trials in human patients". CNBC.
  • Matsuyama, Kanoko (November 14, 2023). "Race for first drug discovered by AI nears key milestone". The Japan Times.

Subject's opposition to having an article

• The subject has stated a desire not to have a Wikipedia page (which was the objection raised to restoration of this article without discussion). This is not an automatic determiner, as this also hinges on the level of notability of the subject—and I would suggest on the subject's own reasoning for this. We have recently had several rather high-profile discussions on subjects who have requested deletion of their articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego García-Borreguero, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranti Bam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole W. Troxler), of which all but one ended up with the article being retained despite the subject's wishes. This illustrate the limited parameters of our observance of such requests.
• In the case of this subject, their comments in the discussion suggest that they did not really have privacy concerns or the like, but merely object to not being able to control the content of the article, and would prefer to have a resume. I am all for protecting the privacy of marginally notable figures, but not for safeguarding their PR directives. It is apparent from the subject's own public activities (granting interviews, taking controversial positions on hot-button issues, and the like), that they are not so concerned with remaining a private person.

In conclusion, I believe the combination of developments illustrated by continuing citation to the subject's academic work, and continuing nonacademic coverage, is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual

• Refund to draftspace. Doesn't seem like any reason not to could apply.—Alalch E. 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restoring a deleted page in such a way that it wouldn't be immediately speedy-deleteable (such as by moving it to draft, so that
  Cryptic 00:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I do intend to work on this, but would consider working on it "offline" to run counter to the transparency that Wikipedia seeks to foster. I am concerned that this will become a catch-22; that no matter how notable the subject becomes, it will never be possible to have an article on them because of the absence of express permission to create the draft from which to document notability. I would also prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. BD2412 T 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • GFDL specifically isn't an issue, since all revisions date to well after the CC-BY-SA migration. We tell our reusers all they have to do to provide credit for that is link back to Wikipedia, even if the article's been deleted; and
      Cryptic 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      • @

        WP:RFU objection was basically that because the subject had requested deletion, there needed to be a community consensus to have anything about the subject in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

        ]

    prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. That is an excellent and admirable position to hold. It fits a simple reading of the GFDL, and even if there’s a controlled argument that proceeding without the deleted versions is ok, Wikipedia should demonstrate best practice for copyright compliance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Refund to draftspace, obviously, is noncontroversial. The AfD is old. Things have changed. The case for recreation is best demonstrated by a draft, with the old history intact. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the close paraphrasing/copyright problems in the early edits to Alex Zhavoronkov are a good reason to keep that edit history deleted. It all depends from how untainted by that the Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov edit history is. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: I frankly do not know how much of an issue that is. The article was deleted and then restored days later by the deleting admin (User:Malik Shabazz) on the basis that the paraphrasing wasn't enough of an issue to warrant deletion. It was not thereafter raised as an issue. Unfortunately, the article creator (User:The Librarian at Terminus) and the primary early contributor (User:T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7) are long gone, as is that admin. The version of the article as of the end of 2014 seems to have substantially different wording than the version at the time of the copyvio assertion. BD2412 T 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov it does seem that you've made a case, by writing, that there's new sourcing and new things to consider over the last half decade. So yes, I'm with SmokeyJoe on having this back as a draft. How much edit history to merge back in is a secondary issue. If there's another AFD discussion, I hope that it focusses less on wholly irrelevant things (like laboratory benches!) and more on whether a properly sourced biography of a person's life/works is writable. That wasn't a particularly good first AFD discussion. The article subject said "It would be great to have the page taken down.", and although I can sympathize with that, as many people have said it before and since, I think that it's worth evaluating "It would be great" against an updated article after 5 years. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to draftspace as noncontroversial considering the early copyright concern seems overcome. Widefox; talk 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refund to draftspace. I tend to be very sympathetic to deleting marginally notable BLP's on the subject's request, but a credible claim is being made here that in the 6 years since this argument was applied, notability has gone well beyond marginal. That is a discussion worth having with an updated draft to consider, and a refund of the previous text as a starting point is a reasonable request. It seems the copyright concerns are moot. Some of the backstory why this request ended up here is at
  Martinp (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]