Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

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 keep. The nom was right, however, the consensus was that it was still a "notable sham" and should be chronicled as such. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Its only claim of "notability" is that it's a sham, but it doesn't even appear to be worthy of an article as a sham. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Delete~~: according to sources, including this one, it isn't an "Academy of Sciences" but a private undertaking selling academic diplomas to whoever is willing to pay for them. Changing my !vote to weak keep, so that we have something to link to when we need to show that it is a sham. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "notability" is that it's a sham. But about this organization there is also an independent journalistic investigation. And there is an opinion expressed by a real academician, a well-known scientist. Not delete. --Wanderer777 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Add. There are many publications related to the UAS, and in them this organization is described in 1-2 paragraphs. For example, about pseudo-historian that received a state award: Radio Free Europe - translated. Or about leader of a totalitarian sect Oleg Maltsev (psychologist): Russian Orthodox Church - translated --Wanderer777 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Independent sourcing (of it being a sham) seems to be adequate for GNG. And it's useful to have this article as a target for links from articles like Vyacheslav Kalashnikov Polishchuk and Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov so that readers can learn what the claims of recognition in those articles are worth. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important to keep examples of dodgy institutions, even though its harder to find good references.Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on the arguments above. Abhi88iisc (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources were posted with an interval of one week(WP:NOTNEWS).124Sanroque (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided to keep the article, then it is necessary to take into account a possible violation of the WP:LIVE. In the future, this sources alone was replicated on other sites. I am not a fan of Ukrainian sources. They do not inspire confidence. I suppose that we are talking about a membership fee, which is present in non-governmental organizations.124Sanroque (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source in this edit that makes my assumptions sound.124Sanroque (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source you complain about is an article on the website of the largest newspaper in Ukraine, while the link you provided above, and claim is more reliable, is a blog... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source is an interview with the president of UAS. --Wanderer777 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per David Eppstein. It's in the public interest that we document sham organizations. I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS is relevant; this is not original reporting or written in news style. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that NOTNEWS point #2 is meant Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. If all the reports were on Tuesday and nothing on Wednesday or any day thereafter, then it is just routine news coverage. SpinningSpark 00:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable hoaxes are notable. This one has at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, over a period of two years, so we can clearly see that this is not just a news article. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not create the WP:SIGCOV that makes a subject notable. Even a sham or hoax with WP:RS and can be notable See Noah Raby. WP:NTEMP WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[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.