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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems that this article does not have reliable sources. Professor Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR sources seem to be affiliated, as Massimo Introvigne and Oleg Maltsev are partners. -- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) 23:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• The article should obviously be kept. If there are other sources about criticism against O.V. Maltsev they should be quoted, but there is no doubt that he is known internationally and his work has been discussed in respected academic and non-academic publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 萧剑 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• This seems ridiculous to me. Professor Massimo Introvigne is one of the most well-known scholars in the field of religious studies and there is no evidence whatsoever that he and Oleg Maltsev are “partners.” A simple look at the “Journal of CESNUR” [1] would show that it has published articles on a wide variety of subjects, by luminaries in the field such as J. Gordon Melton and University of Bordeaux’ Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. Articles quoted from the “Journal of CESNUR” are by other authors too, including PierLuigi Zoccatelli, who is professor of Sociology of Religions at the Catholic University of Turin, Pontifical Salesian University [2] and psychologist Raffaella Di Marzio, who is the author of several books and articles. Are they all “partners” of Oleg Maltsev? The article also relies on an entry on the Applied Sciences Association, the organization founded by Maltsev, in the online encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project [3]. The article is by the same Massimo Introvigne, but the World Religions and Spirituality Project is a peer-reviewed publication at Virginia Commonwealth University and certainly does not select its topics lightly. “Russians don’t give up” seem to represent the position by some Russian milieus regarding Maltsev as the leader of a “cult.” This position is obviously part of what makes Maltsev newsworthy (and studied by scholars internationally) and is mentioned and discussed in the article. User: AidaYoung —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • How would you comment on these: 1 source, 2 source. They are also friends on Facebook. And why is it that Professor Introvigne visits Odessa at the invitation of Oleg Maltsev? We also see that Massimo Introvigne lectures people that have relation to Oleg Maltsev and his organization. Here Maltsev calls him a friend. And please don’t blame me, I am simply a Wikipedia user just the way you are.- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Deleting would be a mistake. The page is balanced and includes criticism. Massimo Introvigne is a famous scholar of religion but there are other sources too. I recommend to keep the page. -- Le luxembourgeois —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I do not think that other sources are sufficient to indicate the Notability. I think this is a promotional article, probably created for a price.- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• I vote against the deletion. There are multiple scholarly sources in this article, and all are academic publications (apart from the National Geographic, which is not academic but a well-known publication as well). The sources, taken together, evidence that Maltsev is internationally studied, discussed (and criticized) in his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1990227 ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• With all due respect, as the person who created the entry, I found this discussion increasingly bizarre. Simply Googling “Massimo Introvigne” would show that he has lectured, has been interviewed by, and is friend on Facebook (where he has thousands of friends) with Catholic cardinals, Protestant bishops, Buddhist monks, and founders of a dozen religious movements. This is common for sociologists of religions, whose method of work is to visit groups and interview people, as it is normal for famous scholars to be invited by different people in different countries to lecture. With Russians Don’t give up’s criteria, no article ever written by a sociologist of religion should be a reliable source for Wikipedia. It also seems that Russians Don’t give up is not familiar with how peer-reviewed scholarly publications, such as the encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project and The Journal of CESNUR and other academic journals work. Even assuming that Massimo Introvigne had biases in favor of Maltsev, he should still have passed the peer review of other academics, which is much more strict and fastidious than those outside the academia may believe. Again, the article certainly relies on works by Masimo Introvigne (undoubtedly, a leading world specialist when it comes to cults), but also on international media and works by other scholars. I am just a graduate student but have made since I was in high school quite a few editing in Wikipedia and find both preposterous and offensive to be accused of creating “promotional articles for a price.” I believe that reading the article would speak for itself. On the other hand, I do not find any editing done by Russians Don’t give up. User:Aidayoung —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Based on my experience and research, and as confirmed by other editors above, Massimo Introvigne is a reliable scholar who produces literature that is well-respected by the community. I have seen his work being used in many other pages, and to delete this page just on the basis of one individual questioning his notability would not be just. He has written various articles that evoke intelligent and sound commentary on various subjects. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• It seems to me that this discussion is deviating from its original purpose. Here, we discuss whether a page on Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev should be kept. We are not discussing whether Massimo Introvigne is a good scholar or a bad scholar or is biased in favor of Maltsev. I don’t believe he is, as his articles on Maltsev also document the criticism he has received and are otherwise well written in a typically academic style, but this is, after all, immaterial. Since there is no doubt that Introvigne is a famous scholar, and that he writes for prestigious presses and journals, once he has written something about Maltsev, this something becomes part of the scientific knowledge about Maltsev and is therefore a quotable source. Criticism of Introvigne is surely legitimate but has very few to do with the question whether Maltsev (not Introvigne) is well-known internationally. That Maltsev is the subject of scholarly studies is a fact - the motivations of those who wrote these studies and their quality have presumably been checked in the peer review processes, but calling them into question now does not make Maltsev less well-known. This applies to Introvigne and to the other scholars who have written about Maltsev, and to the journals that published their articles. A very suspicious fellow may argue that all of them are “friends” of Maltsev (although in this case why they also report on criticism of him is unclear). My point is that these conspiracy theories are not the point. Whatever the motivations for scholars and journalists to write about Maltsev, or everybody else, once their articles are published, and the more so if they are published in peer-reviewed journals and Web sites, they become part of the sources generally available to the scholarly community and the public opinion, and in this case they are enough to establish the relevance of the article. Aidayoung ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Why other scientists don't write about Oleg Maltsev? Basically the whole article is based on the information which comes from Massimo Introvigne. It seems to me that users: Aidayoung, Le luxembourgeois and Nonchalant77 are related to each other, they have never participated in the discussions about deletion of other pages, but they gathered here having a minimal contribution to the Wikipedia. Probably these accounts should be checked by Checkusers -- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) 10:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Again, I am at loss to understand what exactly he is talking about. I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years and created a good number of pages, primarily in my specialized field, East Asian Religions and culture, but also in other fields related to religion. Nonetheless, the comment is interesting. Claiming that I “have a minimal contribution to Wikipedia” shows that this guy or lady is not really familiar with Wikipedia and joined for different purposes than honestly contributing to it. I have also no idea who the other users who participated in the discussion are. Checkusers by administrators are welcome. Again, it is not true that the article is based on one source only, and again the critic does not seem to understand how peer review works in academic sources Aidayoung ( talk) 8:44, 25 August 2018, EST
    • "Russians Don't give up" seems to be exercising a frail attempt to discredit those who desire to keep this page and painting an image of collusion when there is none. A checkuser may be done to discredit this accusation. The argument is simply strong on the notability of Maltsev, and there are enough references to support this fact. A case in point is Mysticism, the Esoteric Paradigm and Oleg Maltsev by PierLuigi Zocatelli, who described in detail Maltsev's contribution to scholarship about the esoteric tradition. It seems to me that "Russians don't give up" is the one with the agenda to delete this page, stopping at nothing and making empty statements in order to achieve his goal. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Let's stop discussing me and discuss the compliance of the article with the rules. If you remove Introvigne sources, then there will almost no article. I will check in what are other articles with professor's sources- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) 22:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The main source is affiliated. It looks like Aidayoung uses sockpuppets.-- Marsellus W ( talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018
  • What main source? There are 37 quotes in the article, and 11 are from Massimo Introvigne, an eminent scholar who is not "affiliated" with Maltsev in any sense of the world. The others, i.e. the majority, are from respected sources other than Introvigne. It seems to me that a couple of Russian users believe that, when an author is controversial, the page should be deleted. In fact, controversies should be taken into account (as I believe I did) but a controversial author does not become less noteworthy because he or she is controversial Aidayoung ( talk) 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • PS I am deadly against using sockpuppets. Aidayoung ( talk) 02:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Update: The sockpuppet investigation has obviously been closed quickly [4]. It was another attempt to harass people who strive to create articles based on academic sources, which for somebody seems to be a high crime here Aidayoung ( talk) 01:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• There is no notability. I know how scientific reviews are done. It is strange that in addition to Massimo Introvigne, no one else is particularly interested in the scientific work of Oleg Maltsev. Night of the Raven ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• These users keep repeating without proving that Introvigne is the only scholar quoted while two thirds of quotes are from other sources. Interestingly the three guys who voted for the deletion have made no significant edits while those who voted against have all edited in the field of religion - and not in my specialized one Aidayoung August 31,2018 2;32 pm EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In my opinion, valuable time was wasted in attacking the quality of the sources, while not only are they of excellent quality but they prove what those specialized in the field (and with some editings done, which does not seem to be the case for those asking for deletion...) know, i.e. that Oleg V. Maltsev leads a well-known and controversial (hence widely discussed) “new religious movement” of sort. Looking at the sources, I notice that
  1. The reference list consists of 19 different items.
  2. Two of the 19 items are two articles by Professor Introvigne and he is quoted (sometimes not alone) in 12 notes out of 38. This is not surprising, as he is “the” specialist of Eastern European new religious movements. His two articles have been published in peer-reviewed sources. The board overseeing “The Journal of CESNUR” reads like a Who’s Who of the most famous academics in the field [5] and the fact that Introvigne himself is one of the editors is not a valid objection, as in peer-reviewed journals the articles by the editors go through the same review as everybody else’s. The peer review process is very strict: see [6]. The other article has been published in the online encyclopedia “World Religions and Spirituality Project,” edited by Professor David G. Bromley at Virginia Commonwealth University whose rules are equally strict, see [7] and which is widely regarded as the most authoritative publication in this field. Even if the articles by Introvigne would have been biased in favor of Maltsev, the bias would have been noticed and corrected in the peer review, unless one suspects a conspiracy involving a huge number of sociologists and universities all over the world.
  3. The references include two articles by Willy Fautré, a Belgian specialist of new religious movements and the president of Human Rights Without Frontiers. Note that Fautré’s first article about Maltsev was written well before the texts by Introvigne. Four quotes are by Fautré.
  4. There are scholarly articles by Professor PierLuigi Zoccatelli of Pontifical Salesian University, who has not an English Wikipedia page but has one in Italian [8] and one in French [9] and one by psychologist Raffaella Di Marzio, who has also a Wikipedia page in Italian [10]. There are eight quotes by Zoccatelli and Di Marzio. That these articles have been published in a journal having Introvigne as one of the editors would not be an objection (and there are not so many specialized journals in this domain at any rate). These are well-known scholars with their own reputation to defend, not to mention that their articles went through the peer review process too.
  5. One quote is to a review of articles about Maltsev in the Web site of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism, the leading scholarly society in the field of esotericism in Europe. The review discusses the relationship between Maltsev and esotericism, obviously a matter regarded as relevant by the Society.
  6. Interestingly, the author quoted Introvigne for factual elements (where Maltsev was born and educated, summary of some of his books), while Zoccatelli, Di Marzio, Fautré and the European Society were quoted for judgments and evaluations. The quotes by Introvigne do not have a valutative content, hence his alleged bias would have been neutralized at any rate.
  7. The person who wrote the entry seems to be a scholar, but she did her homework in checking non-specialized media too. I would have liked more information about Maltsev’s martial arts techniques, perhaps quoting more from the National Geographic article but it looks like this is not the specialized field of the author of the entry. At any rate, five references are from magazines or newspapers. They also confirm that Maltsev is notable enough, and they are in a variety of different languages.
  That the entry should be kept for me is self-evident.-- Le luxembourgeois ( talk) 14:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are numerous serious and respected academic sources. Those calling for deletion do not seem to have valid arguments except that they do not like one particular (internationally famous) scholar who is at any rate one among several sources quoted. Maltsev is well known also for his idiosyncratic and controversial ideas about God and esotericism, recently discussed inter alia by the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism which is quoted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1990227 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • These sources are not about Oleg Maltsev. Willy Fautre spoke about attacks on his company but not about Oleg Maltsev himself. The article in National Geographic is about fencing, again not about Oleg Maltsev, etc. Only Massimo Introvigne wrote about Oleg Maltsev.-- Russians Don`t give up ( talk) 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • With all due respect, the argument seems increasingly preposterous. The Applied Sciences Association is the brainchild of Oleg Maltsev and it is impossible to discuss the Association without discussing Maltsev. His name recurs continuously in Fautré’s articles (in the article Fautré wrote in 2016 the name “Oleg Maltsev” recurs 17 times; in the second article by Fautré, it recurs 14 times), as well as in Di Marzio’s and Zoccatelli’s. Di Marzio’s article is about a movie directed by Oleg Maltsev and its title is “Oleg Maltsev and the Mythical History of Salvatore Giuliano.” Zoccatelli’s article is called “Mysticism, the Esoteric Paradigm and Oleg Maltsev.” The article in National Geographic is about Maltsev’s theories about fencing. I am not an expert of boxing but am adding a reference to Oleg Maltsev’ theories on boxing from a specialized Web site, just for the fun of it. Aidayoung ( talk) 23:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This discussion has been running for 13 days+ now without being transcluded. I have added a {{ subst:afd2}} and will delsort and transclude in today's list in a moment.
  I have added multiple {{ undated}}, I have bulleted most of the above posts to get some clarity, and I have bolded a few !votes. Some participants may find it worthwhile to read WP:DISCUSSAFD and append per WP:REDACT. Sam Sailor 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I am indeed new to deletion discussions, although I have edited/created a number of articles. Thanks to User: Sam Sailor for the useful tips. Aidayoung ( talk) 06:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. Cons: 1) A scholar with no citations AFAIK (according to Google Scholar); not to be confused with the biochemist Oleg Maltsev [11] 2) not seeing any references to his work in Google Books, neither. Effectively, he is not cited in English scholars (which does not mean he is not notable, he just have no real international impact). Can't verify regional impact, since he presumably publishes in Ukrainian and I can't search in that language. 3) He doesn't seem to be affiliated with any scientific institution, at least I can't see any note/CV of him being a professor or such. My reading of his webpage suggests he is working independently, which is not a good indicator (most proper scholars work at a scientific institution). 4) The clear sockpuppet activity here is suggestive of someone with an agenda, and smells of WP:VANITY, suggesting the Wikipedia bios might be written following a direct request from the subject (but weirdly, this has been nominated by a new user too... some off wiki conflict spilling here?). I will also note that creator of this article, User:Aidayoung, also created Massimo Introvigne few years back... coincidence? Or professional association? Shrug. Pros: 1) he studies Struggacky's? That's cool [12]. But doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia's policies... just saying I appreciate it 2) two ( [13], [14]) in-depth articles about him published in The Journal of CESNUR. CESNUR seems like a notable / reasonably reliable publisher, through it's journal is open source and doesn't seem to be indexed in any major international indices (I can't find it listed in SCImago Journal Rank ( [15]), Social Sciences Citation Index [16], nor SCOPUS ( [17]). I don't think they are a predatory journal (I can't find any proof for that), but at the very least they are a far cry from significant journal. Which calls into question how seriously they tackle the peer reviews. This is a tough call; barring other sources, all we have are two articles in a very minor journal. The subject is clearly interested in self-promotion (just look at his nice website; not that there is anything wrong with either), but given stuff like [18] it's clear he has some connections to Italy. Did the two scholars wrote articles about him because they think he is notable - or because they are doing him a favor? Hmmm. The creation of the Wikipedia article is also highly problematic. Given the super low impact of the journal, it's very hard for me to imagine how would anyone stumble upon them (but, AGF, it's not impossible). Still, I just have trouble seeing him as a s real scholar due to his zero presence on Google Scholar; something seems very fishy here - or perhaps I am not using the right searchers to find him on Google. So, either we are dealing with a major WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issue (as in, scholar whose majority of works are in other, non-Latin language) or this is a vanity spam bio. Since no other sources were presented, I am leaning towards the pessimistic ('this is a vanity promotional piece') scenario. Ping User:DGG, User:Randykitty - this is an interesting bio/AfD to review. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Many thanks to the last user for his very interesting comments. There is however a misunderstanding. I know next to nothing about scientists and have never written or edited articles about scientists in a long activity in Wikipedia. My main interest in Maltsev is because he operates an idiosyncratic new religious/esoteric movement that is well-known as such in several countries and is widely accused of being a cult. I have devoted more space to his ideas about God than to any “scientific” activity. In the process of researching him (and thanks also to this discussion on deletion) I have also found many references to Maltsev on specialized sites and sources about boxing and fencing, but this is not my pot of tea. I maintain that the scholars I have quoted are all widely published and with international reputation, and that their articles prove that he is discussed in different countries for his religious ideas. The bibliography of Maltsev published at [19] shows that indeed most of Maltsev’s works are published in Russian, not in English. But at any rate most are about religion/esoterica or fencing/boxing and these articles do not end up in scientific indexes. Aidayoung ( talk) 10:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Even if one of the sources is affiliated, there's enough diversity of sources on the article to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Keep Maltsev’s page, he is obviously notable and the article is well sourced. Nonchalant77 ( talk) 20:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rewrite. somewhat notable, although considerably promotional. I tend to interpret notability for non-standard religious movements and their associated people very broadly, in order to avoid unconscious prejudice. The objectivity of CESNUR has been challenged in multiple directions, but it is not affiliated with this movement. There's no point going by citations--the places he publishes are not in the mainstream accessible to us, and the Cesnur articles are too new for citations. This is not going to be easy to rewrite--it poses the frequent dilemma in this field of not being important enough for an extensive article, but needing considerable space to explain his unique combination of beliefs. His views are difficult to objectively categorize, but I would personally consider his writings as pseudo-history. There is no point judging pseudo-academic work by academic standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks to this user too. I have started improving the article by expanding the references in the section I am less familiar with, boxing and fencing, but such constructive contributions and suggestions are always welcome. I agree wholeheartedly with DGG that Maltsev would be probably not notable as a “scientist” (although he claims to be one and has a PhD in psychology). But he is notable in two fields. One is my own field (and, I understand, judging from their contributions, the field of some who expressed themselves against deletion), new religious and esoteric movements, or if you prefer “notorious cults,” although this is not the politically correct term, or at any rate characters that attract widespread attention for their “unique combinations of belief.” The other, which is not my field, is boxing and weapon handling techniques, where Maltsev seems also to have attracted considerable international attention. The scholars I quoted may be criticized for one or another reason, but one positive contribution they offered is that they tried to explain how the heck Maltsev’s beliefs about God/esotericism and boxing/criminal groups/weapon handling are related Aidayoung ( talk) 21:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As others in this discussion, my experience has been only in editing about religion and I read the article because I am interested in Maltsev's highly controversial religious ideas (with which, as a Christian, I disagree). I do not have enough knowledge to comment whether the subject is notable in boxing or weapons, although a quick search suggests a WP:NEXIST situation in the field of boxing, and other editors may be able to add additional sources. I agree that Maltsev is not notable in the field of science, but that is not what the article is about. In the field of religion, I like the comment by DGG that the structure of Maltsev's theology is grounded in "pseudo-history" and was even tempted to add the expression "pseudo-history" to the article myself, although this may be a value judgement and I wonder whether it would not violate the WP:IMPARTIAL rule, unless this qualification has been used by some scholars somewhere. At any rate, some more critical comments about Maltsev's theories of history should be sourced and quoted and would improve the article. But pseudo-theologies grounded in faulty historical theories, when they become popular enough and attract followers, seem to be generally compatible with the WP:GNG notability rule. Ultimately, I believe the article should be kept because among those studying or otherwise interested in the so called cults, or religious unhortodox movements, Maltsev is well-known enough. I do not find evidence that the main sources are affiliated or promotional. Criticism focused on Italian scholars but Fautré, for example, is not Italian, is himself well-known in the field, and started writing about Maltsev years before the Italian scholars published their articles. 萧剑 ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2018 (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.