Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Malakov

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, disregarding multiple keep arguments from same user. Core desat 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Malakov

Article about a murder victim. While there are some sources, the article fails to establish the notability of the doctor or of the crime. It is also full of original research and speculation. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very painful story and the maintainer appears to be somebody who was close to the victim. I sincerely offer my sympathy and support, but I don't think this meets notability required for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest starting a web page as I realise that this type of work can be very healing when faced with such a tragedy. Also, if it were to stay on Wikipedia, I would encourage the use of <ref> tags with full citations for each source and then add a reflist tag at the end of the article. Such an article can be good for studies on matricide and child custody disputes. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. There isn't a sufficient number of sources, the page seems like an amalgamation of newspaper reports and maybe, even some original research. Rt . 12:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I originally considered "keep" because there seems to be more to this than the usual murder, with a lot of attention and coverage given to it, even by the standards of New York's tabloids. I agree with Santos, however, that the author appears to be someone close to the victim, and the feelings of grief, outrage, frustration, etc. color the entire article. Our sympathies to the author, who can save her or his work, and share it with others after it is deleted. Changing my opinion, with apologies to anyone who agreed with what I've just crossed out. Again, those who do not deem this to be something to include permanently in an encyclopedia should not be seen as indifferent to Dr. Malakov or his loved ones. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I agree with Daniel Santos (talk · contribs) and Mandsford (talk · contribs). Does not seem notable for a Wikipedia article, and contains WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Please, hold on there just a moment, gentle Wikipedian editors. Indeed I am the "maintainer" or author of this article so please allow me to comment and address some of the concerns mentioned above. I certainly welcome edits by others but so far they have not occurred. I would not be surprised if folks are actually frightened to get involved for fear of being identified by the criminal element involved and possibly ending up the target of their ire. Now, early this morning of Dec 16 2007, I went ahead and unilaterally deleted the "notability" tag on the main article, but did so after two weeks of waiting patiently there for someone to respond. No response to my original comments regarding notability had been forthcoming. Imagine my surprise when I idly checked the article the following afternoon only to find a flurry of activity here relating to AfD, i.e., "deletion." Was this simply a reaction to someone other than a "black-belt Wikipedia editor" deleting the notability tag? First of all, I am most definitely not acquainted with the victim or anyone directly affected or involved in the crime. I have taken an interest in this crime because of the highly unusual circumstances. Just for starters: How many other murders can you think of that have (a) involved two medical practitioners or (2) involved child custody matters? This murder in New York is not a run-of-the-mill event! There are many, many divorces and custody battles today; typically the mother is presumed to be the more suitable parent for custody purposes. An instance like this is a "man bites dog" story, since it seems to show the mother to be unstable and dangerous. Antisocial personality disorder is a very serious forensic-related psychiatric affliction which is very seldom diagnosed, and, should it be confirmed (as all data seem to show) that Dr. Borukhova is complicit in the murder of her ex-husband Daniel Malakov, this article will be an important source to inform those interested in learning more about it. (The manifest reason that antisocial personality disorder is so seldom diagnosed is that the conventional interactions between patients and psychiatrists occur in a context of the therapist sympathizing or empathizing with the patient, and patients suffering from antisocial personality disorder are extremely adept at concealing their true aggression; in effect, they mislead their medical providers.) I do agree that the article contains excessive extraneous information about the particular immigrant community - which I dug up out of interest for background purposes and specifically because the article should not merely be a compendium of news reports. I also dug up other information about these individuals using details such as the records of the medical institution where Dr. Borukhova completed a U.S. residency. It is relevant, I daresay, that the mother (Dr. Borukhova) did not attend college nor medical school in the U.S. at all whereas the father (Dr. Malakov) did. I suspect that there may be certain cultural aspects of life within this particular group that is relevant, e.g., the incredible degree of denial that Dr. Borukhova exhibited in resisting the court's order to share custody with the father, essentially from soon after birth, as stated within the article. So, let's fix the article, but do not - I suggest to you all who may not have thought much about the remarkable aspects of this case - deprive future researchers and other interested parties by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As far as "bias" is concerned, all facts point to guilt on the part of the Borukhova clan, and the article simply reflects that while pointing out in several places that the evidence is circumstantial, that possibly another person in the Borukhova clan took action and not Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova herself, etc. I have edited the main article to enhance the NPOV. Trygvielie (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - has potential, but would need work to be more NPOV, and if kept, definitely needs a currevent tag. Achromatic (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep based on improvements by the author, Trygvielie. The circumstances-- New York, former Soviets, custody dispute and involvement of medical professionals-- are such that I won't be surprised if this ends up as a "True Crime" paperback. Lesser stories than this have made it into print, and the writing skills bar isn't set terribly high when it comes to a T.C. book. Good luck to Trygvie, who might be able to pitch this to a magazine or book publisher. You've got a unique idea, run with it. Mandsford (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) -- to continue my remarks in favor of this article, of course I would like to see the article stand in one form or another and that is why I put a fair amount of personal effort into collecting the data and checking web sources for additional information as well as maps of the area in question (Rego Park, NY). Mandsford has IMHO the right idea, namely, that this story is going to become more, not less, significant with time; not necessarily a blockbuster right away but eventually this is going to be part of some larger story or academic study and possibly will be of some modest importance to legal scholars as well as lawmakers. I don't see myself personally writing a screenplay or anything like that. This is a diversion for me and, obviously, I am able to spell more-or-less correctly, type fast, and occasionally turn a phrase and I do enjoy using those abilities and being able to see that my efforts will have some endurance on Wikipedia, long may it continue. Again, too, I emphasize that I have never ever met a Bukharan Jewish person (to my knowledge) though like many I know numerous Russian emigres and have a more than passing familiarity with the Jewish people and their fascinating history. My own family background does not include anyone from Russia and I have no special interest in that aspect of the story except for the fact that it seems to typify (as I had originally written and now I think largely if not completed excised) the insularity of numerous entrepreneurial immigrant populations who (because of that insularity) sometimes seem to view the United States as being populated by an assortment of naive "marks" ripe for being taken advantage of in numerous small business transactions. This particular crime is a story of immigrants, and as we search for meaning in this I would not neglect that the U.S. is widely felt to have a problem with excessive illegal immigration as has been endlessly debated in the media (and in the context of the presidential campaigns presently in progress). The fact that this story involves such a group but also medical/dental professionals who are granted an unusual degree of trust by society amounts to a cultural clash between their ethnic and professional identities. I mean, who would imagine that the internist they consult earnestly and in some real desperation to diagnose a complex set of e.g., gastrointestinal symptoms, might in reality be engaged in planning (allegedly at this point) to murder her ex-husband? There is another aspect of this affair which I've featured (but now edited it to become slightly more muted) and that is the fact of the woman as aggressor. It's not news when a presumedly testosterone-surging man tipping scales at twice or more the weight of his girlfriend or wife is accused of physical abuse, and the legal system has evolved to anticipate that in the case of all these "he-said-she-said" disputes it is more than likely that it is the man who has used dangerous force against the meek and life-giving woman. Indeed that is the reality by all accounts. But the genuine likelihood that statistically it is the man who is the aggressor has been converted into a presumption. Further as we see from all the recent cases in the news of woman teachers who sexually exploit their students (Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, etc.) the natural bemusement and the reason why these stories attract viewers and sell newspapers is that there are many who wink knowingly -- and both of these women were IMHO quite fetching/attractive -- and do not accept these cases as evidence that the women were predatory as they would for role-reversal situations would a male teacher compromise the honor of a young woman student. But in these cases the teachers not only victimized the students (whose normal development was certainly altered, to say the least) but also their own husbands and families whose lives they upended and harmed. One sees from these two cases and other similar ones that presumedly nurturing womanhood can, in some isolated cases, conceal unbridled ambition and willingness to harm those who love them. But they are not necessarily "antisocial" clinically. Returning to the cases of out-and-out antisocial-personality-disorder women such as (it seems from the evidence to date) Dr. Borukhova and Kimes, and others -- whose names I cannot remember but have been reported in the media on various "specials" and ordinary reportage -- it is 100% clear that these women tend to get a free ride precisely because the genuine likelihood I mention above has become a presumption of innocence giving these antisocial personalities cover to carry out dastardly deeds as in the cases of Borukhova and Sante Kimes (who as far as I can tell certainly has no association with the Bukharan community but like Borukhova sought to corrupt her child and killed for advantage). I really just want people to be able to see these facts and refer to them as society unravels the oversimplification that has occurred as we as a society have, quite correctly, waged a war against domestic violence and abuse that has possibly gone too far in providing cover for women who themselves are abusers or worse. Notwithstanding all the aforementioned, I am quite interested in hearing (and I hope it comes out eventually) Dr. Borukhova's account of just why she felt Dr. Malakov was so abusive and dangerous to her well-being. Perhaps there is more intrigue yet to be discovered here, but my assumption through to this point is that Borukhova suffers from a psychiatric disorder that, as I have written above, is undiagnosed in society at large, tends to be unrecognized even by nominally sophisticated mental health professionals, and tends to be disbelieved in "he-said-she-said" accounts of confrontations because of the overwhelming statistical truth that indeed it is typically the man who is more dangerous than the woman. But when the woman harbors evil in her heart, we don't see the warning signs, for example, the 4-year period during which Dr. Borukhova schemed (again, by all accounts) to prevent Dr. Malakov from seeing his daughter. Hope this helps. Trygvielie (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every murder gets newspaper coverage; that does not mean it should be enshrined forever in encyclopedias. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS because of a lack of notability beyond the usual flurry of coverage of a violent crime. Wikipedia is not "true crime archive." Edison (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
(Keep) Of course, my preference would be for others to put the time and attention to offer constructive suggestions to improve the Daniel Malakov article rather than scanning it superficially. I consider this entire discussion to be questionable; as I say the article was up for two weeks with a notability tag and no constructive action nor remarks posted on the discussion page. As soon as I removed the notability tag, the article was slapped with a deletion (AfD) tag. Be that as it may, however, WP:NOT#NEWS states
Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial.
This murder does not appear to be in the nature of a "true crime archive". Perhaps many would turn the page, considering the affair yet another tragic or sensationalistic murder exploited by the news media to attract eyeballs. That does not affect the genuine notability; notability is not a popularity contest and no one individual needs to consider every entry in encyclopedia to be interesting. The Malakov murder is not merely tabloid journalism. (It has been reported in The New York Times, which is not a tabloid) It manifestly does not meet the above-quoted qualification for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Every encyclopedia (wikipedia) article is not going to be of interest to every reader, and I doubt that even a majority of readers will consider any given article to be of compelling interest at any given time. Hardcopy encyclopedias are full of arcane articles representing news items that became of lasting interest.

Quite paradoxically, those who call for deletion of Daniel Malakov are judging it based on the standards of newsworthiness rather than on the intrinsic & underlying issues it raises that make - IMHO - it even more notable for an encyclopedia than for a newspaper Trygvielie (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) I can also comment on the argument advanced above referring to WP:OR
This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.
There is no need for Daniel Malakov to include any opinions, experiences, or arguments. All the information necessary to convey the story and background of Daniel Malakov are readily available from primary reliable sources. Using Occam's razor I have indeed pared back the text of the originally verbose Daniel Malakov to avoid any opinion or even innuendo.Trygvielie (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at present. We have deleted many more dramatic murder cases with much wider coverage. the speculations that it might become important as a paradigm are at present the OR/opinions of the WP editor. No prejudice against re-creation if it does become of notability outside the NYC area. Certainly the details of the police investigation are at this point a gross violation of BLP unless the man is convicted. He hasnt even been indicted at this point. Theentire section 5 is totally unjustifiable, and probably most of 3 and 4 also. DGG (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) IMHO to legitimately delete Daniel Malakov the condemning editors should formulate their response based on principles, i.e., respond to the contention that the notability of Daniel Malakov is not the murder per se,

$Notability_{Daniel~Malakov}\neq \left(Notability_{murder}\right)$ .

but is something like

$Notability_{Daniel~Malakov}=\left(Notability_{murder}\land Notability_{medical~professionals}\land Notability_{custody~issues}\right)$ .

(I do not know of a proper algebraic formalism for the Notability function, but one is clearly needed for Wikipedia to deal with these issues.) In response to comments posted by editor DGG, the news coverage (per Yahoo news search on Daniel Malakov) of ca. 50 articles extends well beyond New York City, to remote news outlets across the United States (California, Georgia) and internationally to Russia (two articles in Pravda). There is no essential relevance for Daniel Malakov of the identity or specific details of the life of Mikhail Mallayev (esp. given that he has not been proven guilty) and all the discussion of Mallayev could be edited out with little loss of relevance to the main article. An indictment of Mikhail Malleyev, though not the central point of interest, is imminent and widely covered in numerous news articles. Sections that are "unjustifiable" should be edited or removed, and ought not serve as the basis for rejection of the entire article.

With respect to WP:BLP...
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
...there seems no danger that Wikipedia would become the primary vehicle for spreading information regarding Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova nor Mr. Mikhail Mallayev since 50 news items have already been written and are widely available. As "maintainer" I accept the valid criticism that all information not widely reported should be redacted from Daniel Malakov but do not accept the somewhat novel contention (which of course is not supported by WP:BLP) that no information regarding a living person should be included in a Wikipedia article such as Daniel Malakov.

With respect to WP:OR...
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.
...as you will note I have inserted more and more references (a few each day) to Daniel Malakov and am in the process of removing any and all elements of speculation or interpretation (will take a day or two to complete in advance of the five-day deadline).

The real question IMHO with respect to Daniel Malakov is not about WP:OR but about that which remains when Daniel Malakov is properly edited to excise any OR. I certainly admit that the version I first threw up was imperfect, but that should not be the issue. Rather the question (as I have put it above) is whether gentle Wikipedian editors are of a mind to throw babies out with bathwater. So to be fair, gentle editors, please address your fundamental concerns to the matter of the baby, and separately point out soiled bathwater that needs redaction. To do otherwise is to IMHO exceed widely accepted limits of courtesy and altruistic intent.Trygvielie (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) Note I have dramatically streamlined Daniel Malakov with IMHO little loss of impact. Please refer to Daniel Malakov. I believe I have addressed all the above editors' comments relating to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:OR, and WP:BLP among others.Trygvielie (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) So the argument for keep vs. delete comes down to notability. Administrator DGG has raised the spectre of the notability of Daniel Malakov. Perusing the list of administrators, I see that administrator DGG has a hot hand with respect to deletion. As an administrator DGG can simply execute the deletion unilaterally. Is it then a foregone conclusion, that, whatever efforts I may make to convince Administrator DGG, the page will be deleted? Further, studying the various Wikipedia pages relating to deletion, I understand that notability is being used as a criterion for deletion but that this is not at all a clear criterion and that it is a cause of some concern. Many seem to believe that notability should not per se be a criterion for deletion. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments I read:
Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known
I.e., a subject like Daniel Malakov which was never intended to relate the sensationalistic aspects of the murder but rather the combination (as described above) of "highly entrusted medical professionals," "murder," and "custody battles" as a unique combination of interest to those studying the issues relating to custody battles in particular is likely to be excised, redacted from Wikipedia because Administrator DGG does not consider it notable. If so, I have learned my lesson that Wikipedia has a unique culture and that if one is to be rewarded with seeing one's article remain available for posterity, one must not run afoul of that culture.Trygvielie (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) Well, the original AfD tag is dated 7:28 UTC, 16 Dec 2007. It is now 21:20 UTC 20 Dec 2007. There has been no posting for nearly 24 hours from DGG or any other Wikipedia Administrator. DGG is the Wikipedia Administrator who both (1) questions the notability of Daniel Malakov and (2) has a prolific record of summarily dispatching Wikipedia pages to oblivion on that basis. I reckon 10 hours and 8 minutes remain for Daniel Malakov to remain on Wikipedia before it becomes eligible for deletion, at which point this record (I assume, perhaps incorrectly) will be expunged. I do not expect that Daniel Malakov has much of a chance given the "radio silence" that has ensued. I guess the satisfaction that a Wikipedia Adminstrator gets for the otherwise-thankless and time-consuming role he or she plays is being able to make decisions that editors like myself simply have to swallow. And so I will. I will swallow the disturbing deletion of Daniel Malakov, and users of the internet will lose the opportunity to easily acquire the facts of this unique murder story. For Wikipedia does, and seems likely to continue in the future to, function as the internet's reference of first resort enabling people of all walks to quickly come up-to-speed on a subject of interest to them, whether or not it is of interest to a Wikipedia Administrator who happen to be on AfD duty when it comes up on someone's radar. The fact that notability is so poorly defined, so subjective, yet is used as a criterion in AfD is now exposed - to my mind - as a birth defect in the Wikipedia model. The idea that unpaid Wikipedia Administrators can be entrusted to make arbitrary deletion decisions seems to be the Achilles' Heel of Wikipedia. For, Professional Wikipedia Administrators would be liable to lose their positions and therefore would be incentivized to develop and institutionalize objective criteria and processes for AfD proceedings. That a lack of objectivity is considered to be a feature (and not a bug) in Wikipedia calls into question the widely publicized study - proudly toted on Wikipedia introductory or FAQ pages - that Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica in its accuracy. Well, nothing's perfect. I have archived this page, soon to be of blessed memory, for my own records.Trygvielie (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (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.