Talk:Georgiy Starostin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The notability of this subject

I did some research but couldn't establish the notability of this person. It looks like there are two persons: A musician and a scientist. I think this article shuold at least has a reference to a CV or a homepage of this person at his university or at the Santa Fe institute. It doesn't matter if this is in Russian, but English would be better. However, if a scientist doesn't have such a basic feature in English, I doubt he finds himselve notable. - Mdd 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but did you have a look at ref#2? That is his homepage at SFI. regards, Jim Butler (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.123.115 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I took a look at ref#2, but this doesn't give much information. I don't question the fact that Georgiy Starostin is a capable young scientist, but if he hasn't even have a website of his own, it's not the intention that Wikipedia will be the first here. - Mdd 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But he does have a site of his own, in English. It's the site you looked at, his home page at the Santa Fe Institute. It's also linked from their "Participants" pages, just to establish that it's indeed specific to him. I think that his work at SFI, along with the USA Today article[1], adequately fulfill WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The mere fact that he's collaborating with the Santa Fe Institute establishes that he "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" (i.e., by his collaborators there, such as Merritt Ruhlen and Murray Gell-Mann, who are by any standard highly eminent and reliable sources for judging who else is an expert.) I agree that it's perhaps not exceptional notability, but from a common sense perspective, it's entirely fine for Wikipedia. It certainly puts him above the "average college professor" threshold.
There was an earlier deletion discussion for this article, and the finding was "delete" because that version had no sources apart from the subject's home page in Russia. The sources in this version fix that problem entirely. As far as I'm concerned, WP:PAPER puts this whole thing over the top. Hope you come to see it the same way, Mdd. (By the way, the music reviewer and the linguist are indeed one and the same.) regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I cited him in Borean languages and I see there are about 100 wikilinks to his page. --JWB 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that hardly counts. See also WP:NOTE and further pages. Notablity should be established here by at least a few third party sources. - Mdd 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTE does not say "at least a few". It says independent source(s), and historically goes back and forth on whether there must be one or more. Common sense dictates avoiding repeated deletion debates based on that. At any rate, SFI and USA Today are independent and suffice here, especially in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). (I haven't formed an opinion on his notability in terms of popular music reviewing, but it doesn't matter.) Jim Butler(talk) 00:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
His father was possibly the most notable linguist in the long-range comparison field, and he's carrying on that work. There are 22500 Google hits in Russian. I posted to ru:Обсуждение:Старостин, Сергей Анатольевич requesting more contributions. --JWB 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, his father doesn't count here, see also WP:NOTINHERITED. The rules of Wikipedia are rather restricted here. - Mdd 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
His notability or lack thereof as a linguist is one thing, but what about his notability as an online writer about music? If Mark Prindle has a Wiki entry on the basis of his website, I can't see why George shouldn't. Hopefully I'm not just going to get Prindle's entry deleted too... Hughteg 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I made some improvementrs on the article. But still: if this person has a weblog about music, has written one paper and is refered to in one article... Why would you want to have this person mentioned in the Wikipedia in the first place? - Mdd 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Again the links added are not of third party sources. One way to find those sources is by looking at Google BETA. But I have an explicit question: What did Georgiy Starostin publish in English? and where? If no proper answer is given, I'm going to proposed this article for deletion. - Mdd 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The product is called Google Scholar and the BETA in the logo means it is in beta testing. --JWB 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTE and related guidelines don't say that publications in English are required; rather, the sources establishing notability should be in English (since this is English-language Wikipedia). And that is the case (SFI and USA Today). That said, he does appear to have several English-language publications, and I'll add those presently. Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Here you can find some more. His interests are quite wide-ranging. Jim Butler(talk) 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not really a blog, it's a website, and it's not just -a- website, it's widely regarded as one of, if not the, most comprehensive idependent record review sites on the web. You will find multiple references to Starostin as a reviewer on message boards and mailing lists - his opinion is often invoked, if not always agreed with, when discussing music. I think that for this reason his notability is established.Hughteg 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. I only look at it from the systems science perspective. Now youb say he is a notable music critic. Now if I search for "Only Solitaire George Starostin" in Google I find only 23 hits. How is this possible? - Mdd 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Try googling for "starostin music review". 19,700 hits. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "starostin music review" as one word gives me 5 hits. - Mdd 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Try without the quotes and with a slightly better search: "george starostin" OR "george starostin's" music review OR reviews OR reviewer. About 14,200 hits. Still, I think what is needed for this aspect of notability is Wikipedia:Notability (web); not sure if we have that or not, but academically, it's still more than adequate, imo. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to establish notability

The list of more articles is a good step (and Russian articles are all right for me.) And so is the search criterea on Google to find something on him.

But now a next step has to be taken. There has to be found at least two independent third party sources, who says something notable about his work, in a publiced source... or an highly regarded website article. This text must be put in the article with a reference. This shouldn't be to hard? - Mdd 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to the policy section where you are getting this criterion? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Your sentence is also unclear... says something notable about his what? There are at least two independent third party sources already cited, not even counting the projects where he is participating. --JWB 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First sorry, I meant his work. Second the criteria for Notability (academics). The first three are:

  1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.
  3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

All three kind of mention: by independent sources. Hereby sources mean at least two. - Mdd 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only independent source I see yet is the US today and that is very thin. - Mdd 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mdd, I directly addressed this just above.[2]. To summarize: Here, an independent source is one outside the author's, or his father's, page (starling.rinet.ru). Thus, his collaborators at the Santa Fe Institute qualify, and there are several notable ones there (Ruhlen, Bengtson, and of course Gell-Mann). His participation in that project is itself notable. Also the fact that he edited Mother Tongue, a peer-reviewed journal, signifies academic notability.
This stuff exceeds the "average college professor" criterion.
Also, please read the the deletion log for the earlier version of this article. The problem was that in that article (see a mirror of it here), WP:PROF was not met by independent sources. With the SFI and USA Today refs, we've fixed that. Reading that discussion, it's obvious that had the article then had those references, it wouldn't have been deleted.
Thanks. Let me know if anything's still not clear. Jim Butler(talk) 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, both Santa Fe Institute and Mother Tongue are no independent sources. I haven't read this yet untill now and I wasn't aware of the fact that this article was already recently deleted. That explains something to me (If I am not mistaken, this is also a reason that an article can be speedily deleted). I have to read it a bit more, to get a clear picture. - Mdd 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, for the purposes of establishing that other academics view him as an expert, they are just fine. Read the deletion discussion I linked to. Jim Butler(talk) 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can ask User:HisSpaceResearch? - Mdd 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I compare this article sometimes with an article of another young scientist Christian Fuchs (sociologist). His work published more than 60 contributions, including 5 monographs and 2 anthologies, and he just got the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia can't have an article about every young scientist. - Mdd 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline links to external sources

Mdd, is there some kind of policy against inline links? --JWB 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule is all external links should be gathered in the external links section, and each webside should there be linked only once. That is why I removed all inline links to external sources (as I did before in maybe over 100 articles). I make an exception for the reference - and publication sections. - Mdd 11:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out where this policy is documented? Thanks. --JWB 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I can try to find out. It is probably listed somewhere... but I'm no expert on those rules. But you can also look for yourselve for example in featured article, or biographical article about the most famous. For example in the article Einstein. You find one inline link to a wikisource. All others links are in the reference-section. - Mdd 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen External Links sections in other articles, though I don't remember seeing edits specifically to move links to those sections.
It seems to me that not having the link inline only reduces usability, so I would like to go to the talk page for the policy and discuss it. Thanks in advance for finding out. --JWB 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, "edits specifically to move links to those sections", the last change I made to this article moments ago, all other changes I made. It's called wikification. As the initiator of the WikiProject Systems I have been corrected more then 100 articles in this field the past three months. I have more then 600 articles on my watch list and daily I check and often correct more then 10 articles. Do you want to question my abilities? - Mdd 20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are editing to apply a policy, it's reasonable to ask for a cite for that policy. If it is a personal preference and not a policy, of course you don't need a policy source for that. As for your abilities, I don't need to hear that they're special, unless of course you have two independent third party sources to that effect. :) --JWB 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I ask is if you or anybody else what to establish the notability of this person. - Mdd 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still interested in a source for the inline links policy. Thanks. --JWB 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ask the helpdesk.- Mdd 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've searched the relevant policies on links, and there is in fact no such requirement. The ones that mention external link position are Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Position_in_article which says links *can* be moved to an external link section, but also mentions embedded links without saying they should be moved, and Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section which says there are two basic formats and that an external links section is the most common. --JWB 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ask the helpdesk what is normal and let me know!? - Mdd 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Or give me some examples of articles with inline links - Mdd 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Mdd, in response to your question "The only thing I ask is if you or anybody else what to establish the notability of this person": Oh, please! I've already replied in detail twice, here and here, and you have yet to say anything specific in response. If you don't understand my points, please ask, but please stop requesting information that others are spending a lot of time trying to explain to you. I've been cutting you lots of slack because I see you aren't a native English speaker, but even so, WP:TPG still applies to us all. Thanks! --Jim Butler(talk) 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read the last contribution here. I looked at the article and saw that the situation had not improved yet. - Mdd 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Me beeing not native English has little to do with establishing notability. I'm just trying to help.

[edit] Improvements on this article

I started making some improvements on the article... just to give a direction how I think this article can be improved. - Mdd 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I used a second way to make this article more notable by adding some of his work. More details has to be filled in, but I think the situation is improving. - Mdd 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, looks very good! Didn't mean to get hot above; WP:AGF is indeed a very good idea. On the fact-tags, yes, maybe some of the Russian users will be able to flesh out stuff like his alma mater. Your work has improved the article quite a lot. regards, --Jim Butler(talk) 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for making a sourced recreation

Of course, I appreciate Starostin's music criticism instead of his linguistic work, but after the AfD I felt that Wikipedia was somehow missing something without this article. See the AfD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand that you are the editor who proposed to deleted the article the last time. I don't knwo how the first article was like. I do know ee had quiet some discussion around this article, and I think we develope it into an interesting start. - Mdd 20:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The earlier version looked a lot like this. The current one is a big improvement substantively, thanks in large part to Mdd's additions (nice choice of illustrations, too). I too am a fan of Starostin's music site. I just went ahead and added back in some of the music stuff from the earlier version; it's all sourced from his personal page, but per WP:SOURCES that's OK as long as the article isn't primarily based on such sources. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)