User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.6 (5e1ad30).

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.
Plains-wanderer
Photograph credit: John Harrison
The Signpost
16 May 2024
 

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
6,827,166 6,117,662+ 2,912,719+ 2,613,719+ 2,585,439+ 2,158,962+ 1,981,023+ 1,954,911+ 1,865,181+ 1,616,459+
More than 63,032,445 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,142,875 articles.


Russia[edit]

Mark Bauman[edit]

Mark Bauman (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)

Moved unilaterally to mainspace after prior draftification. I see poor referencing, churnalism, and lists of "stuff" albeit as prose. WP:BIO insists on references for facts subject to challenge, and there is a shortfall, so I see a WP:BIO failure. I also see WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM "cross-platform media executive, filmmaker, print and broadcast journalist, and environmentalist." doing his job. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").
None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lika O[edit]

Lika O (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)

Requested by Demeter39G, Here: The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog. http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Based on my review, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Most of the cited sources are unreliable or fail to establish notability due to their lack of detailed coverage. I also searched for sources but found nothing that meets the criteria of WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
As per @Cullen328 recommendation at Teahouse. I already voted by nominating this article. GrabUp - Talk 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Grabup, because you simply copy and pasted the other users rationale from the talk page, your own vote is probably okay here. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine. Cullen was explaining about both sorts of cases, the ones where it would be ok and the ones where it would be irritating. This is not the one where it would be irritating. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. GrabUp - Talk 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing found for sourcing, this seems to suggest she might not even be a celebrity [2]. This is all I could find, a photo [3]. I agree with the nom, sources used are not helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    The Medium article is just an amazing analysis and a major exposé. Maybe she also paid for this Wikipedia article? GrabUp - Talk 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article was developed on 23 October 2019‎, if you check the article history there were many anonymous edits without a reference which was been undo by many other Wikipedia editors to protect it.

As mentioned in the previous vote, the Medium article as analysed good, but there many Medium article which mentioned by the concern person works, I have also added one article of it. It seems that this article has been targeted by anonymous person.Moharavi (talk)

  • Comment: @Moharavi Medium.com can’t establish notability as per WP:MEDIUM and the other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable. Also, I don’t think this article is being targeted; rather, it seems you are just promoting her. GrabUp - Talk 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Sir @GrabUp, If you know that Medium.com is not notable, then why have you mentioned "the Medium article as analysed good" I am humbly request a fare voting process, Please stay away, because your intention is not good. I totally accept if other person voted against it. Moharavi (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Moharavi, please assume good faith of GrabUp. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hope so. Moharavi (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Moharavi, I never said that Medium is reliable or can establish notability. You are misunderstanding me. I am simply thanking editor Oaktree B for bringing that article here and expressing appreciation for the Medium article’s author’s detailed analysis. Why do you think my intentions are not good? I have never done anything to you that would warrant such an accusation. GrabUp - Talk 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    The source identified as Source 6 features an image of individuals with no description or coverage at a gathering and does not showcase notability. https://www.emmys.com/tags/lika-osipova The Medium article this user added also fails to establish notability, as Medium is a blogging platform, not a recognized magazine, and lacks references to credible media that provide analytical content. The observation that each source appears to be sponsored raises concerns about how the page was approved initially. Additionally, @Grabup, I have suspicions this editor has a connection to the page or was paid for it. Given the apparent use of paid editing services. Furthermore, a sponsored segment about a restaurant this editor added is irrelevant to establishing the individual's notability within this category.
    Furthermore, the article added about the dating life of a male reality TV persona, barely mentioning the person, and yet used by Moharavi as the source to establish notability looks like advertising. He added that article as a source to " In 2021, She began her singing career with her debut songLights, for which she won Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards." which is not even mentioned in the article upon closer inspection. 108.60.60.254 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I also verified the source you added from Vietnam. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency. Demeter39G (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Forgot to log in. It looks indeed as advertising to me, as I stumbled upon the wikipedia page from an ad. There are no significant edits made anonymously to the page if you verify the history. Rather some content removed by an experienced editor Kuru, as non-WP:RS : unmarked paid placement / SEO. It creates non good intentions, as you just tried to mislead the editors. Demeter39G (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Moharavi, Now you are lying, saying that you never said my intentions were not good. By removing the original comment where you said, "Please stay away, because your intentions are not good," you think no one will find out? Why you are deleting your comments after they are replied? GrabUp - Talk 07:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Grabup looks like this is the user who created this page in the first place, suspect was paid for it. What do you think? Is there a way wikipedia marks paid articles?
    • 05:51, 23 October 2019 diff hist  +3,594‎  N Lika O ‎ ←Created page with '{{short description|Russian actress}} {{Infobox person | image = | name = Lika Osipova | birth_name = | birth_date = 30 September | birth_place =...' thank
    Demeter39G (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Demeter39G: I know that he created that article and left Wikipedia in September 2021. Suddenly, after more than two years, he came back when I nominated the article. Maybe he was paid. There's no need to do anything; surely the AfD will be closed as Delete. GrabUp - Talk 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Grabup I follow this interest wise to see how many more paid fake sources someone will add. Someone removed and added same video source you commented on already. I'm impressed to be honest, did not expect someone's so invested. Demeter39G (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • KEEP This article Passes WP:GNG, because she was in the covered of the magazine Harper's Bazaar, interviewed in NBC Los Angeles, also other few recently added reference.Evgeny72 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    DELETE This is false information again. It was not covered by Harper Bazaar. See previous reply. HB -Vietnam is paid advertisement. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency.
    See GrabUp reply , the person was not interviewed by the NBC Los Angeles, it is a segment about a venue. GrabUp replied " other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable." Demeter39G (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Note, stop adding paid sources. It is self-advertising. The source you added- is not an reliable source. It is an advertising platform, with button with prices in the middle, and it has a paid staff note. "Lika O: The Star Charlie Walk Knew Would Shake the World from the Moment He Saw". thesource.com. Retrieved 2024-05-22. Demeter39G (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Gemma Khalid[edit]

Gemma Khalid (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)

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Danila Kashin[edit]

Danila Kashin (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)

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. The remaining sources are news articles. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yevgeny Slyusarenko[edit]

Yevgeny Slyusarenko (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)

An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC).

I have written the article and I made sure it satisfies WP:N by adding references to multiple reliable sources. The nomination does not address the point. Obviously keep. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: There is need for amendment with WP:NJOURNALIST as it doesn't help with AFDs. The article has been appointed by notable newspapers including referenced by Gazeta.Ru is enough to meet WP:SNG for journalist. The problem is who is really a journalist? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Andrey Shishkin[edit]

Andrey Shishkin (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)

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Mala Tokmachka[edit]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka (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)

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment
1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.
2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.
3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.
4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.
5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability based on sources, as defined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat) (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 NBIO. Recently deceased Russian diplomat. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Comments Source
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source 1. www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject. 2. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 No. 348 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mozambique”" . Archived from the original on 2019-01-26 . Retrieved 2017-09-14 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject. 3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 16, 2018 No. 76 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Swaziland on a part-time basis”" . Archived from the original on 2018-02-16 . Retrieved 2018-02-16 .
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source 4. ^ www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Obit based on government sources, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source 5. ^ "Russian Ambassador to Mozambique Died" . TACC (in Russian) . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .

BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, and an interview, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: First and foremost, lower your tone while nominating the article for deletion. Secondly, government decrees can be used as secondary sources as if you can type the full name in a Russian, many sources will pop up, (in Russian of course), apart from the official government statement. Here's my third point, he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office. Would you delete the ambassador of the United States of Mozambique for that reason? Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office Ambassadors are not inherently notable, several hundred have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Grigori Chernozubov[edit]

Grigori Chernozubov (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)

Clearly fails notability guidelines, no significant coverage. No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There is still no notability, and one "brief" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the one hand, there is no support for deletion. On the other hand, the keep argument is not strong. Let's hear some more thoughts on this before passing a verdict.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep I can see multiple Google books refs in Russian. Mccapra (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

Veronika Kropotina (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 WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Otar Eloshvili[edit]

Otar Eloshvili (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)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, France, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 World Cups for a reasonable rugby nation, and a career in France. Few bits found in a simple search such as this. It is highly likely that more sourcing exists offline or in difficult to access non-English language sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    The link you provided is mostly an interview, which is considered unreliable and not a proper citation for notability, betides one link hardly makes someone notable. Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Should be notable with the World Cup appearances, but there aren't enough of them beyond simple confirmation [4] of him playing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Also tried a Gnews search with .fr websites, you can only find photos or him being mentioned in articles about other things, I don't see enough to build even a basic article about him. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Huliaipole[edit]

Battle of Huliaipole (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 named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: As the principal author of the article, I would be remiss not to comment that I've put a lot of work into this and would be devastated to see it all thrown in the trash container. I'm not opposed to less notable events being cut down (previous edits have already been made by others to this effect) but I would ask that if this moves towards deletion, that relevant information be merged into relevant articles. Not voting either way right now, just asking that participants take this into consideration. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Super Dromaeosaurus, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Jebiguess, and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Pinging previous talk page participants. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion - The article is well-sourced and extensive, and the sources showcase that there is more than enough for an article (Thus I strongly disaagree with Cinderella's statement that the "Events [are] not independently notable"). However, I think concerns about the article name are valid in relation to the article content. Thus, I propopse that insteads of deleting the article, we should rename it to Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or History of Huliaipole (2022–2024) to save the valuable work done for the article, while clarifying that this is the history of a certain city during a war instead of a single battle. Applodion (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename into Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is significant coverage of this town during the war and the battles for it, but I don't think any individual battle for the city or it's outskirts is notable for its own article. I also think that describing the city's role as one continuous battle is disingenuous; renaming the article to the the history of the town during the war and the role it played as one of the major cities on the southern front more than establishes notability while keeping the bulk of the information. Jebiguess (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion. Deletion seems unnecessary, but I think changing the article’s name would be fine. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There exists no named "Battle of Huliaipole" in reliable sources, as Cinderella157 has mentioned, and I agree with Jebiguess that portraying these events as a battle is "disingenuous"; there appears to be strong consensus that, at least, the current title should not be retained.
The real debate lies in what to do with the content of the page, as the notability of the events has been called into question. Let us analyze the content of this article. One could probably divide most of it into two categories: (1) bombardment of the city of Huliaipole and (2) combat on the front line in some villages south of the city. Honestly speaking, much of the latter probably does not belong here - there is excessive undue mention of places a significant distance from the city, such as Novodarivka, Mala Tokmachka, and Velyka Novosilka.
With respect to the former category: the city lies close to a front line that has been largely stable for two years, so it is understandably a regular target of artillery bombardment. We do not have similar articles for other such frequently attacked places, nor should we be expected to – at a certain point, the 50th instance of "Russian forces shelled Huliaipole" is simply not notable enough for inclusion – this content should be dramatically condensed. Consider, for example, the sections for March 2024 and April 2024, and then read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge useful content without redirect per SaintPaulOfTarsus. Agree with nom that the article is yet another non-battle. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The page has over 300 references. Could you clarify what should be analyzed, and what the purpose of the analysis would be? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
An article typically needs two or three solid sources providing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Analyzing such two or three refs among those 300 will likely go a long way towards establishing notability. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Owenx: The problem of this article is not really one of notability or significant coverage of the "Battle of Huliaipole" itself – We cannot establish notability for an event has been conceptualized and given a name by Wikipedia editors alone, and does not exist anywhere else. Nearly all participants in this discussion, by my count, are of the mind that the current title is not ideal because this page is essentially a patchwork of nearly every article that happens to mention Huliapole in any war-related context. Take, for example:

On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.

from this source:

How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the record, I was never happy about the title, I raised issues with it years ago and even before it was created. This article was effectively a content fork from the article on the city, as coverage of how the war affected the city quickly came to overrun the rest of the article. The title simply stuck out of inertia, as I was the only person that stayed around to update the article in the long term, and my attempts to gain consensus on a move or merge went nowhere. I'd still support either of these options, as proposed above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The title is irrelevant for AfD. The closing admin will likely ignore !votes that are based solely on the inappropriateness of the title. The only question before us in this AfD is: could the events described in the body of the article meet our notability guidelines (e.g., WP:NEVENT), based on existing sources, and is this notability independent of that of more general events, such as those described in Southern Ukraine campaign? If, and only if, the answer to both questions is Yes, the article will be kept, and discussion may then commence about giving it a better title. At this point, the title should be seen as a placeholder. Debating it here is a distraction. Owen× ☎ 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What is pertinent from Grnrchst's comment is that this is an inappropriate content fork and therefore not independently notable. The metric of how many sources are cited does not of itself establish notability. Almost all of these are WP:NEWSORG and none are peer reviewed (that I can see). Those I do not class as NEWSORG are think tanks, predominantly ISW that makes regular summary updates of events and are only a short step away from being a NEWSORG in spirit. Most of these sources make only the briefest passing mentions of Huliaipole. I sampled three citations (100 Ukrainska Pravda 4 July 2023, 200 Ukrainska Pravda 23 December 2023 and 300 France24 22 May 2023). They each make a single mention of Huliaipole:

  • [Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
  • Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
  • The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So far that kind of articles only exists for major cities. Lowering the threshold to a small town like Huliaipole could also ignite the creation of many content forks. Personally I don't believe it is a good idea. Even if they're well-written, I don't think we should have this kind of articles for places in Ukraine unless they're prominent. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep without prejudice to a moving the page? Move is not a valid AfD outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Further comment: merging with an uncreated article is not possible; that would be a cut-and-paste move. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Shortcuts


Science[edit]

Suzanne Pierre[edit]

Suzanne Pierre (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. SPA-created fanpage. Subject has H-index of 4 on 70 total citations. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

Quantum weirdness[edit]

Quantum weirdness (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)

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.  --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:
Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.
While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.  --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    How is it even relevant to the discussion that "most scientists who have worked in the area" have no issues? Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen, and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science. While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.
    The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory. This is an entirely different topic than covered by our "Interpretations" article.
    There are, nevertheless, some connections with the "interpretations" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away. In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead. But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule, so it is not mathematically equivalent. The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent. Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation, which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule. Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory "bullshit".[5]  --Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    Please note that this is still a stub, not a fully developed article.  --Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics? There are many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics largely because it is "weird". Walsh90210 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep but probably change it entirely? I don't see a reason not to have an article on the book titled Quantum Weirdness, but if the book itself doesn't meet requirements for notability, maybe just Delete. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Cassie., you are "voting" both Keep and Delete? If you are not certain on Wikipedia's standards for notability, it's best to not participate in an AFD discussion than to give a contradictory opinion that doesn't help a closer assess consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I'm familiar with the guidelines, I'm just not familiar with the book. Love, Cassie. (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Briefly, quantum weirdness is a thing referred to both in scientific publishing (and prepublishing) as well as the science communication press. I don't think the present article does a great job explaining it, but that's a signal it should be improved rather than deleted. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify. Although the article is not quite ready for mainspace, there is no policy-based reason for deletion either. WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply, since the article is not written like a dictionary entry. What perhaps irritates the editors is the way it is presented as a fact that quantum mechanics is "weird". In the introduction of Philip Ball's book (cited in the article), 'Quantum weirdness' is actually called a trope, and Ball quite critical of portraying quantum mechanics in this fashion. To achieve a WP:NPOV, this kind of views should be included. This is not an easy subject to write an encyclopedic article about (as opposed to an essay) and draftspace should provide time for that. If, instead of draftifying, there is a consensus to redirect the article somewhere, then I suggest Introduction to quantum mechanics which matches the content of the current article quite well. See the second paragraph in the introduction of that article, and compare the list in Quantum weirdness to the section titles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    The article was created in Oct 2022 so I think technically it is too late to draftify (WP:AFDTODRAFT). Also, we have a "moving target" page here. The one AfD'd was WP:DICTDEF; that as of 24 May is IMO WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Of course rules can be broken and the article draftified. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati[edit]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (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)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

List of explorations[edit]

List of explorations (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)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 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"