Talk:Georgiy Starostin

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)

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)

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)