Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Nikolayevich Belousov

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 delete due to lack of reliable sourcing. General consensus is that training to go to space, and not going, is not sufficient to warrant an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Nikolayevich Belousov

[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)

This man trained as a cosmonaut but never went into space. I couldn't confirm that he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search gives a large amount of relevant hits in Russian (example).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability. I would imagine that any member of the Soviet space program would receive a certain amount of run of the mill coverage; fact remains that attempting to get into the Guiness Book of Recors as the oldest spaceman is not a claim to notability; it is rather a desperate attempt for it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concern seems to be 'is someone who trained as an astronaut/cosmonaut, but never flew, notable?' Up to now the answer to that seems to be yes, given we have articles on those in the US space programme who were in the same position, such as John S. Bull, Edward Givens, Brian O'Leary, Donald Holmquest, Philip K. Chapman, etc. Many of their post training careers followed the same trajectory as Belousov's, who went on to work as a senior researcher in scientific and military developments, and as a senior editor in a publishing house. The Soviet/Russian cosmonauts should not be held to a different standard. His career is noted in both Russian and English language works, like Hall, David & Vis' Russia's Cosmonauts: Inside the Yuri Gagarin Training Center, Zigunenko's 100 Great Secrets of Cosmonautics, Zheleznyakov's Secrets of Rocket Disasters. The Price of Space Breakthroughs, Slavin's The Secrets of Military Cosmonautics, and in the Military Encyclopedia of Belarus, etc etc. The latter should qualify for the WP:GNG under WP:ANYBIO in itself. The article is in need of clean up and expansion, but as the Russian entry shows, a full and complete article can definitely be written, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Spokoyni (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment by user Spokoyni. He is actually well known. One can find RS about him, for example [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom, User:TheLongTone, and the editor that has moved the article to a non-notable title, without discussion here or on the talk page, without consensus, and removed the maintenance tags without discussion. As a (cosmonaut) this subject is certainly not notable. Making "comparisons to other articles to show there is bias might be in good faith but is invalid. I am making no decision based on the nationality nor ethnicity of the subject. A 2017 tag called into question the notability of the subject, which has not been resolved, even though the tag has now been improperly removed. When notability is an issue then "keep" comments like "He is actually well known. One can find any number of RS about him." is not a credible rationale. NPOSSIBLE states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. The criteria for inclusion is based on multiple reliable and independent sources. The reason we have sourcing guidelines is to be able to "prove" notability exists. A problem is that being a cosmonaut (or astronaut) is not a valid criteria for automatic inclusion. A search of The Secrets of Military Cosmonautics (Google books) did not bring up anything I could source to the subject. Any wishing to show notability for inclusion should provide more than a name, like a page number (proper sourcing), so a possible inline citation can be used. Just listing the names of works, that are likely not about the subject, does not satisfy GNG or any other notability criteria. I mean this in the nicest of ways but I don't know anything about the Russian encyclopedia, the "Russian entry" there, or the sourcing criteria. If we are going to translate articles from there to here there should be more than a pseudo biography, dictionary entry or a name with primary sources. We are not required to assume an entry is notable because it is covered somewhere else. On the English Wikipedia the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life., and this is evidenced by our sourcing criteria. Otr500 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Russian article includes three sources: astronaut.ru, hobby.ru and evg-rumjantsev.ru. All three sites appear to be user-generated content and therefore not WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I have given a reliable source above.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject doesn't meet the GNG guidelines. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The example source (Why don't people fly) has been brought up twice as well as mention of bias("...Soviet/Russian cosmonauts should not be held to a different standard"). I am 100% for inclusion of notable subjects across Wikipedia platforms. We apparently have unlimited space and need to limit any bias as much as possible. The English Wikipedia, reportedly having more stringent sourcing requirements, does not in itself create a bias that we should overlook or watered down by exceptions. If there are astronauts or cosmonauts that are not independently notable there should not be a stand alone article on that individual. If an individual is deemed to be non-notable that is a reason to examine this and not use it as a reason to try to include other like articles as a reason to keep or consider it bias.

The article List of cosmonauts shows the vast majority of the names have blue links. The "example" source lists names that are included and some that are not. Valentin Bondarenko is surely notable.

Valery Beloborodov may have been missed along with Vladimir Benderov, Valentin Ershov, Leonid Ivanov, Leonid Kadenyuk, Eduard Kugno, Mars Rafikov, Alexander Schukin, and Rimantas Stankevicius. If they were cosmonauts they should probably be included. I will leave a note at List of cosmonauts for examination.

Ivan Anikeev (from the source), apparently Ivan Anikeyev (one source), Valentin Filatyev (one source), and Grigory Nelyubov, were "members of the original 20 cosmonauts", and were expelled for drunk and disorderly conduct. Filatiev became a teacher. Nelyubov, ended up being killed by a train while drunk. Possibly being one of the original 20 cosmonauts selected can be seen as stand alone status notable. If so then surely a member of the "Sochi Six" would be. This source indicates that Russian politics is a cause of a lack of sources. Are some of these actually "notable" for stand alone biographical coverage?

Gherman Titov (listed as German Titov) and Yuri Gagarin are in the source and certainly notable. Sergei Vozovikov died in service and has sourcing. Konstantin Valkov is not on the list but was selected as a Russian cosmonaut. Exclusion may not be biased just a lack of editing.

The point is that "just" being a member of Lists of astronauts, List of astronauts by year of selection, List of astronauts by name, List of cosmonauts, or any of the other lists, or any mentioned in a source, does not mean an individual article should be created on that criteria alone but we all know that happens. I don't see a "different standard" but maybe non-notable astronaut/cosmonaut articles. If a subject is notable then include it, if not then merge or delete. Otr500 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone being included (or not included) in WP lists is not a proof of anything. What we need here are RS telling something about this person to establish his notability and check other information about him. Such sources have been provided in comments by user Spokoyny and me. Here is an additional source used in ruwiki: [2]. This is a database about Russian astronauts. In my opinion, this is a sufficiently reliable source for non-contentious claims, and it does establish the significant involvement of this person in the Soviet space exploration programs. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: I do not understand the comments "WP lists is not a proof of anything". A subject may not be notable enough to warrant a stand alone encyclopedia article, but be a member of a more broad notable subject, so in the interests of preserving any important and encyclopedic content, we include it there. I do not just argue deletion for the fun of it. If a subject is notable for a stand alone article, as provided by our notability, sourcing, and inclusion policies and guidelines, it should have an article. I consider the evidence without any "bias" and if there is evidence of notability I am more than happy to jump ship for inclusion.
The source, astronaut.ru, is a database that states at the top "He has no space flight experience." It appears to be more of a resume since the "Space training" section "provides nothing" advancing notability. The "about" section of that database states it is maintained by five editors and proof read by an additional three. A problem is that it states, "The information presented on our website is collected from various print and Internet sources, if necessary translated by the authors into Russian, and also taken from the personal e-mail correspondence of the authors of the Encyclopedia with astronauts and astronauts from Russia, Europe and America and other persons involved to astronautics.", and further states, "The history of astronautics continues, the site is constantly evolving, and, for sure, this is not the latest version. And you, too, can help in the development of the project by simply sharing interesting information with us or even becoming one of the authors of the site.".
While possibly acceptable at ruwiki, maybe for even for "non-contentious claims" here, the editorial process is questionable, especially as a reliable source concerning notability. Otr500 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have notable achievements. Also WP:ONEEVENT. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing any good sources in my searching. Mostly I'm seeing indiscriminate lists (who was born on July 24th, famous people with the initials BB, etc), and rehashes of wikipedia articles, including things like this which masquerade as books. The problem with all this (and why I added the weak qualifier) is that good sources are more likely to be found in Russian, which I'm not qualified to search or evaluate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I got bupkis running a Google search for the name in Russian, both with full name and patronymic and with just initials. I then went to the Russian WP page, which has no footnotes whatsoever, but links to THIS in the external links section — seemingly imported in full as the whole of the Russian WP article. This appears to be a blog. The second external link is to THIS biographical piece at www.space.hobby.ru — also a blog. Third link is to THIS biography. None of these three biographical internet sources point to footnotes; all seem to be derivative of one another. In my opinion, this fails GNG for an article at English WP, but I would not be adverse to flipping my opinion if someone can point to some actual news coverage of the subject. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.