Wikipedia

Ace111

Joined 3 January 2009

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.2 (ce9d259).

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).
WikipediaВикипедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.
I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.
This user is from the planet Earth.
This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤
This user contributes using Firefox.
Lichfield Cathedral
Photograph credit: David Iliff
The Signpost
25 April 2024
 

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
6,817,034 6,119,170+ 2,904,046+ 2,607,404+ 2,583,282+ 2,156,872+ 1,976,098+ 1,948,327+ 1,860,757+ 1,612,327+
More than 62,883,869 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,123,808 articles.


Russia edit

Nodar Kancheli edit

Nodar Kancheli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg edit

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We should keep. It's relevant to the wider history of UK - Russia relations. Notable because it was forced to close. Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Alexey Okulov edit

Alexey Okulov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Citation counts [1] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Vladimir Ivanov (model) edit

Vladimir Ivanov (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandr Zinovyev (footballer) edit

Aleksandr Zinovyev (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP. Few sources exist in Google, Google Books, JSTOR, TWL, and others. 2003 LN6 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659) edit

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Pryadkin edit

Sergey Pryadkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: G5: No other users except for the sockpuppet has made any substantial edits. Additionally almost all references are WP:ROUTINE and as such fail WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete given the article's history. Anwegmann (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep 14 years at the head of the Russian Football Premier League, one of the main people in Russian football. Detailed articles about the person’s activities in Novaya Gazeta [2] and RBC Group [3].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
    Probably better to cover his role in that article then, per WP:BLP1E. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Before we move on to extant sources, we should note that the article's subject (a) has been the president of the top-tier Russian football league for fourteen years, (b) has been vice president of Russia's football association, and (c) has served in UEFA's top councils & committees. These attributes, on their own, support subject's independent notability, even if we were to have only sources that would simply state them and nothing more. Yet, sources exist, in ample numbers: Associated Press article]; Tass reports here, here, and many more; The Guardian report on Pryadkin & racism in football; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    AP source is WP:ROUTINE, WP:TASS is unreliable and, the Guardian source is a short clip that lacks WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
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. ✗plicit 03:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rinat Baibekov edit

Rinat Baibekov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sourced bio for non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete unless an editor can rewrite the article based on newly discovered references to reliable, independent sources that devote enough significant coverage to this artist showing that they meet WP:ARTIST. The "Artist's statement" section is of no value, because an acceptable Wikipedia article about an artist summarizes what sources independent of the artist say, not what the artist says about themself. The "Overview" section is unreferenced, banal and uninformative. The "Exhibitions" section is entirely unreferenced, and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Russia, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per both above. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
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.

VDud edit

VDud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect as suggested in the comment above seems like the best choice, the Youtube channel doesn't seem to have much coverage we could use.Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike edit

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. CutlassCiera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"is absolutely news" @Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
It sure is news, but this isn't a newspaper. We need some sort of coverage to build an encyclopedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    "User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."
    @3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
    1. A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS.
    2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept. The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
    3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some !votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing, which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
    4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future.
    5. It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.
I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.
Its notability is already established.
It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. CutlassCiera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ekaterina Zaikina edit

AfDs for this article:
Ekaterina Zaikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash edit

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.
    Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.
    The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):

    Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.[1]

    82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

    Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

    Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.
    Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  2. ^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  3. ^ a b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  • Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Foreign interventions by Russia edit

Foreign interventions by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up for deletion because the scope of the list does not seem consistent with the style or content of lists of this type in other parts of the wiki. Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Anna Burtasova edit

Anna Burtasova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

Tsar (tank) edit

Tsar (tank) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep The article simply needs more sources. Salfanto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up:
  1. Do the sources this article simply needs exist? If yes, then please present them here.
  2. If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future? If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON, but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.
  3. If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?
Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for asking these questions.
So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html
https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank
https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured
Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  • delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago. It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are just enough sources to justify the article. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: There is precedent for it, as some individual tanks may be considered notable. Compare Cobra King (tank) to this article, the former of which has many secondary sources discussing it with a sufficient level of depth, whereas for this article I feel we're scraping the barrel - the majority of the sources currently cited do not even mention the tank once. Loafiewa (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT, for lack of secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Only relevant because it was in a war-related news cycle. Sources seem to be the normal sites that cover anything and everything that happens in Ukraine. An interesting event, but not a notable one. No evidence that this will see any further or substantial coverage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Alyosha (tank) edit

Alyosha (tank) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge to T-80 models. The article is very poorly sourced, and "video footage" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named "Disinformation" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as "untrue information to journalists". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    The purpose of this article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    Also I believe that wikipedia is best when not biased to one side Salfanto (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


Others edit

Draft edit

Shortcuts


Science edit

Single visit dentistry edit

Single visit dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term exists, but most uses of it seem to be promotional, many tied to the mentioned CEREC company. Unsure if this term alone meets WP:GNG and especially a need for independent sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Alexey Okulov edit

Alexey Okulov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Citation counts [4] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens) edit

Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not needed. It is handled at both of the species' articles (giant panda and red panda) as well as the disambiguation (panda (disambiguation)). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu edit

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is advertising. It was deleted before in 2017, and does not seem to have been improved. Just getting a patent is not notable, it has to become a real product/method heavily used. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep:First off, most of the inventions shown on the page are dated AFTER 2017, showing that it has been tremendously improved from 2017 to 2024. I am wondering how you did not see that. Getting a patent is one thing but being mentioned by two succeeding presidents in reputable national newspapers does not seem to me that the subject is non-notable. The page is not advertising as there is no other way to show his inventions other than the tone used, unless you can provide a sample sentence for writing about inventors. His biogas is heavily used in Nigerian prisons to generate electricity and it was in partnership with no other than the Federal Government of Nigeria. There are more than twenty indepth national newspapers which describes his inventions too. So I am wondering how his notability is an issue. Royalrumblebee (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Bordering on G11 speedy, however he is notable and i believe that the article just needs to be cleaned up and have advertising removed. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't get the deletion. I suppose the advert has been removed or still at a least look. However, WP:GNG requires that the article must have covered by reliable sources that are also verifiable. All I can see per WP:NGRS in the sources to show this article meets our general notability guidelines and for creative professionals. I won't say "keep" or "delete" but mostly suggest clean up. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Expansion about nomination. First it is worth remembering that anyone can submit a patent, just as anyone can submit an abstract for a talk, the current ref [11]. Existence does not make the patents or work notable, there has to be reputable independent secondary evidence of this, of which there are none here, just requotes of material from him.
    Secondly, claims need to be appropriate and consistent with established science. For instance the claim "single electrons and lone pairs are the major sources of toxicity in elements and compounds" is both a circular reference to his own work, and scientifically deeply unsound. Many other statements are scientifically very unsound (WP:FRINGE). If they were sound then there would be independent sources from reputable scientific journals to back them up, of which there are none.
    Thirdly, references must at least be consistent with and support the claims. The article has the invalid science "vapor-like water that emanates from ice is another state of water different from vapor which emanates from hot water" sourced to [16] (which should be [18]) which is a primary source, 100% fringe science published in a disreputable journal.
    Finally, Notability depends upon reliable, independent sources, and I see none of that here, just a lot of unsupported claims, reproductions of what he claims, masses of awful science (WP:FRINGE), and advertising/puffery. This is not WP:CREATIVE, claims have to be verifiable and not fringe (WP:FRINGE).
    Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    Also, none of the patents is sourced using the standard {{patent}} template, or better the standard {{cite patent}} template. As such the claims that they exist is unverifiable. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: His fire proof paint is known offline. The application of his claims is largely recounted in the sources here. I'd say wiki articles about the sources show their reliability as per WP:GNG. Don't know how thick is his science or theory. Removing unsound scientific claims but retaining his verified applications would do.
    Diamondsee (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle" edit

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
      Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
      Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
        Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
        No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Two points:
    Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
    You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.
    I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [5], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [6]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [7], and in context of national university organization [8] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [9][10][11][12]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Going Ape edit

Going Ape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
    One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
    I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ninoslav Marina edit

Ninoslav Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced autobiography of a person who tried so hard to promote themselves that their name ended up on the global title blacklist. No clear evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, Technology, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evident notability in the article and very obviously written by it's subject as a résumé page. InDimensional (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per above, not notable. He is not currently the Rector, and I have major reservations about the University. Looking at their 2022 graduation photo https://uist.edu.mk/about/gallery/patrons-day-graduation-ceremony/ it does not look notable to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., I did an AfD on the university, University of Information Science and Technology. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The former rector of a major academic institution would generally be notable, but I don't think this is a major academic institution; little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Clarifying that my !vote stands: I suspect the academic institution may be notable, but do not think it clears even a low bar for "major". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Hold -- The qualifications for Marina to pass the AfD stem entirely based on whether UIST in Macedeonia is considered notable. If it is, then there is a pass of WP:PROF on the precedent that the top-level official at a significant university is notable. If it is not found to be notable, then there isn't enough here to keep. But subjective judgments on whether the graduation photo looks glamorous enough are not policy. (And current vs. former holder of an office is explicitly not a criterion for notability). For more, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Information_Science_and_Technology_"St._Paul_The_Apostle". My !vote is whatever the conclusion of that AfD ends up being. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Mscuthbert, the WP:NPROF guideline is that UIST should be a major academic institution for rectors to be considered notable. This is surely a much stricter standard than notability, and I don't see anyone arguing that the institution is major. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    The cases I can remember (going through AfD for academics for about 16 years), the cases where top academics at higher education have been deleted have entirely been non-notable universities (which the AfD for UIST will determine), community colleges, and small, independent theological seminaries. I believe that the bar for "major" has often been at about that level. I can't recall a president/VC/Rector of a research institute being deleted for their university not being sufficiently "major". -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    There was one for a Singaporean university president recently, but I can't recall the specifics. JoelleJay (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral I second everything what @Mscuthbert has stated above. Let's wait and see the conclusion of the university's AFD. X (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If someone is to be considered academically notable for being the rector of a university, the presumption is that their position is actually a significant accomplishment for someone in their subfield broadly, not just "in Macedonia". That's why we require the university to be "major". Notability of the institution is not sufficient (we have plenty of articles on community colleges), so regardless of the other AfD outcome this article fails to demonstrate notability through NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena edit

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * it has begun... 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nanotech metallurgy edit

Nanotech metallurgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Gold phosphide edit

Gold phosphide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕Luna edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You might be a bit hasty.
A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.
If you want to claim that AuP[1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work. The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth. While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au2P3[2][3][4]). So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.
Per one site "Gold Phosphide is a used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes." [5]
I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require. There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well. So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.
I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.
The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing. Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either. The two SIDs 56368501, 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem). 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)}
American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR, due to their commercial interest. All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed. I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au2P3.[6] Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837
  2. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675
  3. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501
  4. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709
  5. ^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide
  6. ^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.
  • Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable (Xenon octafluoride, Nitrogen pentafluoride, ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:GNG see [13] [14] [15] -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP? Most of the hits for the former are for Au2P3, and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP. Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things. References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance). Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that. Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)
  • Rename to gold phosphides per previous "keep" and "rename" arguments. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bubble laser edit

Bubble laser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:
This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:
I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Draftify, there is just one scientific article and several pop science retellings of it, and it's too soon, as already mentioned, to establish its notability. Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Why doesn't WP:GNG apply to the topic? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    Answered my own question, WP:SUSTAINED should be satisfied here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions edit

Science Miscellany for deletion edit

Deletion Review edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ace111&oldid=812247595"