Desertdweller

Stanislav Galaktionov moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Stanislav Galaktionov. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because see comments, this is not currently suitable for the English WP. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. However, I was surprised that you considered the article unsuitable for the English Wikipedia, given its "Good Article" status in the Russian Wikipedia. I was also surprised by the placement of the template stating that it is "written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic." The article contains no such elements; all evaluations are based on published sources, most of which are by scholars who are colleagues of the subject. Could there be some misunderstanding? Desertdweller1983 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The statement says "see the comments", which is to rewrite. The expectation for articles is different for the various language WPs, they all have their own policies reached by concensus. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I've rewritten the article. Is it better now? Desertdweller1983 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It is better. There are quite a few format issues such as the use of internal links, but let's hit first the big one: notability.

It does not matter what you or I think, the article has to demonstrate notability. Please have a look at some of the current entries in List of Russian chemists, and see how notability is clear in at least some of these. One who looks like a reasonable model is Victor Veselago, but there are others. The most obvious criteria for an academic is WP:NPROF, although he might be able to pass WP:NAUTHOR. I think he will, pass but it needs to be made clearer:

1. Did he receive any major awards? We typically have a section on these (all sourced). These have impact as they indicate that other academics consider him notable.
2. If I do a Google Scholar search the numbers are not encouraging. This is not necessarily the end as his articles may not have made the commonly used western search engines. If you can provide evidence that he is highly cited (> 5K times, ideally > 10K times) that will help a lot.
3. Some reviews of his books will help with WP:NAUTHOR if that ends up being the route you go.

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed correct that many of his works are not indexed in commonly used Western search engines, as he spent the majority of his career in the USSR, behind the Iron Curtain, and his last ten working years (United States, 1991–2001) coincided with a period when the Internet was not yet widely used in academic publishing. Nevertheless, there is documented evidence of 27 peer-reviewed articles on ResearchGate authored or co-authored by him since the early 1990s, along with multiple conference proceedings and book chapters.

Under WP:NPROF, criterion #1 ("The person's research has made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline") appears to be met. Professor Nikiforovich writes:

"S.G. became a Doctor of Biological Sciences, specializing in biophysics, at the age of thirty-six and established himself as one of the founders of a new scientific discipline now called molecular modeling".

Under WP:NAUTHOR, clause 2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique") may also apply. Professor Harold Scheraga notes:

"Prof. Stan Galaktionov developed a novel ab initio approach to fold prediction based on constraints from the contact matrix of predicted folds (Figure 1.6) that restricted possible folds to those with the correct density seen in experimental structures".

These independent high-profile scholarly assessments suggest that Galaktionov originated a significant new technique and had a lasting impact on his discipline, which could satisfy the core notability criteria. Desertdweller1983 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You are trying to force the concensus notability criteria to fit him, but it can only be the other way. The english WP has academics from every country. We can only apply criteria equally.

27 publications is about the level of an assistant professor, see for instance here. She is not (yet) notable. Typical notable science academics have more that 200 peer reviewed publications.

One person saying that he developed a significant new concept is not enough. His concept would have to have been used and/or cited in 1,000 publications for it to be acceptable as demonstrating notability.

Awards? Ldm1954 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I am not trying to force anything. I feel that your tone is becoming a bit confrontational, and I want to assure you that I am doing my best to follow the rules. I am on unfamiliar turf in the English Wikipedia, and it is already challenging enough for me as it is. If I find any information about awards, I will use it; right now, I have none.

27 publications on ResearchGate does not mean that these are his only works. Your own words above (“his articles may not have made the commonly used Western search engines”) suggest that you probably understand the situation with Galaktionov’s publications and the internet, as explained earlier. There are, for example, 7 scientific monographs and 6 popular science books listed in the Bibliography section. They were published before the 1990s and are therefore not on ResearchGate, but that does not mean they have no value or that their author is “about the level of an assistant professor.”

In Galaktionov’s case, reducing his record to a fixed number of publications on Google Scholar would exclude an influential scientist on purely formal grounds and would not be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. We have two professors whose statements support WP:NPROF criterion #1 and WP:NAUTHOR clause 2. You yourself wrote above: “he might be able to pass WP:NAUTHOR. I think he will.” Has anything changed? Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. According to the publisher’s note for his 1988 book ("Biologically active"), at that time he was the author of “over 100 scientific works and several popular science books.” Desertdweller1983 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Stanislav Galaktionov has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Stanislav Galaktionov. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stanislav Galaktionov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stanislav Galaktionov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stanislav Galaktionov has been accepted

Stanislav Galaktionov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)