Talk:Alexander Panchin

Reliable sources

Hello, Ldm1954. As I understand, the rules permit sources in languages other than English (WP:NONENG). The article includes sources that are not affiliated with Panchin himself (for example, in the "Awards" section). His work is covered in Russian-language sources (Russian Academy of Sciences, Kommersant, Gorky; although there is a limited number of articles in English: BBC, The Moscow Times), and he is regularly invited for interviews by various Russian-language magazines as an expert (Vokrug sveta, Forbes Russia, Mel).

I suppose that this article may satisfy the WP:ACADEMIC guideline (which is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline). The "Awards" section contains a list of prestigious awards that Panchin has received (he was a finalist for the "For Loyalty to Science - 2017" Award by Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation). Moreover, he is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Commission on Pseudoscience (source), an expert council of the Harry Houdini Prize (source) and a member of the "Evolution" educational foundation (source).

I think together it shows notability of the subject. Metra pro (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• In addition, Snob shows interest in his book "The Sum of Biotechnology" (source). Metra pro (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The tag was not about RS, it was about general notability. There are no indications that he has WP:SIGCOV that would provide a pass of WP:GNG, please read WP:42 for the specifics of what is needed in terms of independent coverage. I did not tag for WP:NPROF because it is clear that he has not received sufficient attention from the scientific community.

Based upon what you added, your argument is that he is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Please see the specific criteria there. You have to demonstrate with favorable, independent reviews that he passes those notability criteria. It is not relevant to add anything here, everything has to be on the page. While he does have awards for at least one of his books, whether that organization is considered sufficiently notable to lead to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR is a question I do not know the answer of.

I will add a tag for WP:NAUTHOR as you have to prove this better. Note that the tag does not state that he is not notable, like the other one it points to issues with notability. If I thought that he was clearly not notable I would have tagged the page for deletion, which I have not done (but others might).

N.B. I have major reservations about the whole "Views" section. What is this supposed to prove? It certainly does nothing towards notability. There are other sentences such as his views on homeopathy which I do not think constructively contribute to the article. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Correction, there is no specific tagging for NAUTHOR, so I will leave it as it is. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Ldm1954, I cleaned the article from blogs. There are only secondary sources and interview. All links below are provided in the article.
• I think these secondary sources show interest at least in writing activity of Panchin: 1 (Snob), 2 (Gorky).
• The person is regarded as an important figure (WP:AUTHOR). If I understand the paragraph correctly, Panchin's invitation as an expert should demonstrate this: BBC News Russian calls him "one of the most famous popular science bloggers on YouTube" (source), the longest running magazine in the Russian language Vokrug sveta calls him "our favorite science popularizer" (source).
• The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention (WP:AUTHOR). I think this is reflected in the "Awards" section. I replaced the sources with secondary ones. Metra pro (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• While he does have awards for at least one of his books, whether that organization is considered sufficiently notable to lead to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR is a question I do not know the answer of. I think the Enlightener Prize's importance is reflected in the direct reviews in major newspapers and magazines: 1 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), 2 (Daily Journal, article by Galina Yuzefovich). Moreover, this is the first (and as of 2014, the only) prize for popular science literature in the Russian Federation (source). Metra pro (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• Panchin is also a laureate of the Belyaev award (source). Sufficient notability is confirmed by the presence of an article in the online Great Russian Encyclopedia. Metra pro (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  To repeat, nothing you add on the talk page is relevant, it must be in the article. Convincing me is not relevant, I am a reviewer who has pointed out issues to you, not a judge or jury. These issues have been determined by a consensus of hundreds of volunteer editors, many of whom will be much less polite.

  In addition, please note that all notability criteria require significant discussion, not passing mentions. Therefore Vokrug sveta has to say much more than that phrase, it has to be paragraphs. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to convince you or challenge consensus rules. I'm trying to demonstrate that the article has no issues with notability. My response includes links to Snob and Gorky, which clearly aren't just a mere mention, but an analysis of Panchin's work. This is not a brief mention, there are several paragraphs dedicated to both the book and the work of the author himself. That fall under paragraph 4 of the WP:AUTHOR rule (The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention). And all these links are in the article. Metra pro (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• The article doesn't provide links to reviews of awards (but provides links to the fact that Panchin received them) because they are not directly related to the subject of the article. I'm trying to show you or any other volunteer that these are prestigious awards because they are written about in major publications and encyclopedias. Metra pro (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Metra pro, I've just gone through all your sources and I'm sorry to say I agree with Ldm1954 - although I think Panchin probably does have a claim to notability, it's not shown yet.

WP:42 is one of my favourite pages here and very useful when assessing sources. You can show notability when you have sources (we usually look for three or more) that meet all three criteria. Interviews and anything written or said by the subject or their friends/family/employer/etc are not independent, which trips a lot of people up. Currently there's only one source that I think could meet all three criteria (Gorky), so you need more. Ldm1954 is correct that some reviews of Panchin's books would be extremely helpful here.

Awards are also tricky because we usually don't count them towards notability unless they have their own Wikipedia article. I see that the Enlightener award does, but it's not a good article and I'm not convinced that it should have an article so it doesn't really help Panchin here.

In short I think your best strategy would be to find some solid reviews of Panchin's books and summarize those in order to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I hope this helps! Meadowlark (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Hi, Meadowlark. Got it, thank you. Why do you think Snob (the sixth book on the list: «Сумма биотехнологии») doesn't meet the criteria? It's not affiliated with Panchin. Of course, there is less there than in Gorky, but more than just a simple mention. Metra pro (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'll look for sources, okay. Do you mind if I ping you here later? Metra pro (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• The award-winning website Biomolecula features three reviews of Panchin's books: Апофения, Гарвардский Некромант, Защита от тёмных искусств. Among the editors is Anton Chugunov, who is a senior researcher at the Laboratory of biomolecular modeling. Metra pro (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the Enlightener award: in 2014, Rossiyskaya Gazeta called the Enlightener "the only award for popular science literature" in Russia. It has also been the subject of critical reviews (not mere news reports, as the editorial staff provides its opinion regarding the award itself, its influence and its procedures) by critics over the years: 1 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), 2 (Daily Journal, article by Galina Yuzefovich), 3 (Uchitelskaya Gazeta). I believe adding links to these reviews to the article about the award would enhance it and demonstrate its notability (I can do that in the near future). Metra pro (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

In summary, I believe these three sources demonstrate Panchin's notability. They are unaffiliated with him and provide analysis (as the editorial staff offers its opinion on the content and influence of the books) of three of his popular science books. This meets the WP:AUTHOR criterion that an author's work has "won significant critical attention". Moreover, one of Panchin's works received the influential Enlightener Prize, which was the first award of its kind in the field in Russia. Metra pro (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Somehow I missed/misread the Snob source on my last pass - my apologies. I agree that Snob and Biomolecula are solid reviews and count towards notability for him. Gorky I'm still dubious on - it seems to be discussing GMO in general more than the book in particular. But you did link to other Biomolecula reviews and I believe that all three of the reviews there are good sources, so his notability is proven. Well done!

The next step is to add this into the article. I'm struggling with offline troubles at the moment, but if you don't get to it before me I'll have a crack as soon as I can. If you're feeling up to the task, it's probably simplest to add a 'reviews' section to summarize the reviews. A sentence or two for each review (or each book that's been reviewed) is sufficient. That way the evidence of notability is in the article, and at that stage I would agree that the tag can be removed (even by you, but I will happily do it if you prefer not to).

The Enlightener Prize article might be your next challenge, if you're looking for something to do after that! I agree that it certainly sounds notable, but our article is not very convincing at the moment. It might just be that it needs someone who can read Russian to find good sources... :) Meadowlark (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• These sources are already in the article, but I'll edit the article using them, I need about a day. Thanks for your help. :) Metra pro (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Well, I did it faster than I thought. Meadowlark, can you please remove the template? Metra pro (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)