Draft talk:Maxim Tabachnik

Notability rationale for AfC resubmission

I am the subject of this draft and have disclosed my conflict of interest. I am resubmitting through Articles for Creation and am asking that the draft be considered under WP:NACADEMIC, not only the general biography standard.

The subject is a political scientist whose work focuses on nationalism, citizenship law, and post-Soviet politics. He is the author of the Palgrave Macmillan monograph Citizenship, Territoriality and Post-Soviet Nationhood, and peer-reviewed articles in Nations and Nationalism and Post-Soviet Affairs. The monograph has received academic reviews in Insight Turkey and Nationalism and Ethnic Politics.

The subject’s Google Scholar profile shows 93 citations as of June 2026, including 39 citations for the article in Nations and Nationalism, 31 citations for the Palgrave Macmillan monograph, and 13 citations for the article in Post-Soviet Affairs. The subject also has a GLOBALCIT profile and authored an EUI/GLOBALCIT report on Azerbaijani citizenship law.

I understand that self-authored publications alone are not enough. The resubmission is based on the combination of academic reviews, citation impact, peer-reviewed publications, a publisher-based academic monograph, and GLOBALCIT/EUI expert work. Maximtabachnik (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Maximtabachnik -- as CopyleftEverything already pointed-out:

"Article fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Per WP:NBLP, article needs two WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV of the subject. All but two citations are from Tabachnik, and the other two are a review of Tabachnik's work, rather than substantial coverage of Tabachnik themself."

About a month later, you then re-submitted this draft without any work having been completed on it. You did, eventually, modify the article slightly - primarily adding Wikilinks and some minor polishing - but you did not address the primary concerns.

I acknowledge and even appreciate that you have disclosed your COI. This is not the issue.

You assert:

"I understand that self-authored publications alone are not enough. The resubmission is based on the combination of academic reviews, citation impact, peer-reviewed publications, a publisher-based academic monograph, and GLOBALCIT/EUI expert work."

This is all well and good, but we need a source which is both reliable and secondary to say that, itself. For better or for worse, we, as a platform, do not collate, coalesce, or otherwise analyze someone's work or contributions; we must avoid the appearance that we conducting improper synthesis of citations or conducting original research. We need sources which refer to you, not simply your work, as well. Sometimes those things are intertwined, admittedly, but the sources need to exist in the first place before we can pass jduegemnt on them.

This is not a judgement of you nor of your body of work. Many very prolific and influential scholars and academics do not qualify for Wikipedia articles for the same reasons.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand now that the issue is the absence of sufficiently independent secondary sources discussing me as the article subject, rather than only publications, reviews, citations, or institutional listings connected to my work. I will not keep resubmitting the draft unless I can locate stronger independent secondary sources that address that issue directly. Thank you for explaining. Maximtabachnik (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)