Wikipedia

Ace111

Joined 3 January 2009

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.4 (2111e6d).

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.
Carpocoris purpureipennis
The Signpost
25 April 2024
 

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
6,822,860 6,118,121+ 2,908,988+ 2,611,139+ 2,584,633+ 2,158,237+ 1,978,996+ 1,952,348+ 1,863,175+ 1,614,503+
More than 62,966,694 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,134,693 articles.


Russia edit

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash edit

AfDs for this article:
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 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)

2nd nomination.
No significant lasting effects (demonstrated). Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Fyodor Chernozubov edit

Fyodor 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)

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 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)

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)

Sergei Magerovski edit

Sergei Magerovski (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) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian interference in European politics edit

Russian interference in European politics (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)

Came across this article when doing research on the Mueller special counsel investigation. The page contains way too many quotations, close paraphrasing and improper use of a non-free source, and overall fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

70.26.38.47 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676) edit

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676) (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)

Case similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659). Cossack-Russian fighting was part of the Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) and partially Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676). Doroshenko was an Ottoman vassal during that time. Russia was trying to conquer entire Ukraine using the fact that the Ottoman Empire was engaged in the war with Poland. They besieged Doroshenko in Chigirin, but he was saved by a Turkish army in 1675. A year later another Russian campaign caused Doroshenko to switch alliances and join Russians.

Of course the name itself is problematic. Doroshenko was only one of the few Cossack hetmans at that time, and he was ruling only part of the Right-bank Ukraine as an Ottoman vassal. There was also supported by Poland Ostap Hohol, and supported by Russia Ivan Samoylovych. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nearly all of this is unsourced so it is not possible to merge. As in the aforementioned AfD, there is very little that supports the idea of a separate war between "Ukraine" and "Moscow";[5] this was part of a larger war and pushes a certain narrative. Much of this looks like OR presumably based on two sources not reliable for history. Mellk (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: largely unsourced original research of a topic of dubious provenance. Nothing worth merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Giorgi Elizbarashvili edit

Giorgi Elizbarashvili (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) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinadamina (talk) 19:16, 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 ☎ ✎ 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite a few caps and appeared at a World Cup for a reasonable rugby nation, and a career in France. Few bits found in a simple search. It is highly likely that more sourcing exists offline or in difficult to access non-English language sourcing. At worst can be redirected to List of Georgia national rugby union players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    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) 04:17, 8 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)

Battle of Urozhaine edit

Battle of Urozhaine (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 is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.

Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. The article is clearly not notable, so it should be deleted. I don't get the "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" thing, I have just shown that this topic area is prone to repeated creation of non-notable content. Super Ψ Dro 07:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I support deletion of this article per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term "Battle of Urozhaine" does not exist in reliable sources. The ISW-CTP citations here say nothing of a "battle of" or "battle for" the location and only make passing mentions of combat in the region. The NYT citation here does not mention Urozhaine either. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 11 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)

Evgenia Sergeevna Didula edit

Evgenia Sergeevna Didula (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)

Russian pop, ethno-pop and folk singer. The person does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Lilia Biktagirova edit

Lilia Biktagirova (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; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - The subject is notable if it meets WP:GNG even if it fails WP:NSKATE. See this comment for a full description. No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG
~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine edit

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (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)

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [6] (paywalled so can't review) and [7], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?
PoisonHK Sapiens dominabitur astris 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.
Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.
The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per others, particularly Alexis Coutinho. Needs some improvement but shouldn't be deleted Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Keep The article serves a historical purpose Salfanto (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep. Per nominator, there is no coverage of this topic as a group, only individual instances. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    I will also say that there are several other lists for other countries that should likely also be deleted unless good sources are found for those countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. The fact this is simply a list, not an in-depth article, also hobbles this entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails NLIST, sources do not show there is WP:SIRS discussing this as a group. List contains only non-notable entries (one exception), serves no purpose per WP:CLN. Keep votes above are ILIKEIT and provide no sources showing this had been discussed as a group or guidelines showing why the should be kept.  // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian youth edit

Russian youth (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 entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.
My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:16, 5 May 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep !vote was blocked as a sock, leaving us with the nom as an implied delete and one merge !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


Others edit

Draft edit

Shortcuts


Science edit

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)

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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 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)

Okhotnykovo Solar Park edit

Okhotnykovo Solar Park (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 solar power plant is so tiny that it is not notable and not worth anyone wasting time cleaning up the article Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanh Cong Dinh edit

Thanh Cong Dinh (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. These links are all garbage. This person is a research assistant, not the lead researcher. Jb45424 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Philip Thorpe Priestley edit

Philip Thorpe Priestley (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:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alexandru Sorin Biris edit

Alexandru Sorin Biris (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)

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [8][9] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with this article, but the editor's intent in removing it is questionable. Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/
    Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Really wish you had carefully read the following pages before you made change to the article :
    [[1]]
    [2] Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more
  2. ^ Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]
  • We cannot use the Quora source for anything concerning a living person, as it is user generated content. The retractionwatch source is already used in the article. Neither has much to do with notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. His h-factor is decent, but as others have said he is typically in the middle of the author list. This means he presumably contributed, but did not lead (last author) or do most of the work (first author). It is a fairly high citation field, so other proofs of notability matter. I see no awards, and h-factors alone should not be everything. Hence to me it is a definitive Delete. If someone can find awards I might reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 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 [10], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [11]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [12], and in context of national university organization [13] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [14][15][16][17]. 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)
Sorry, I didn't mean to connect reputation to Caltech -- and Deep Springs, Harvey Mudd, or University of Main School of Law is a better analogy to what I meant as my point that size of institution in itself isn't a determinant of notability. Thanks for the better comparison. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Pinging @ElKevbo and Sdkb: as regulars at WP:WikiProject Higher Education, their input could help build a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry but my expertise is in US higher education. And with seemingly most or all of the available sources not being in my only language I'm afraid that I can't be very helpful here at all. If pressed, I would lean slightly toward keep on the strength of the evidence that you cited in your own "weakish keep" !vote. But if there aren't enough sources available for an article to be written by volunteers in English Wikipedia then I would certainly understand a "delete" result. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • (Found this via ping above) Keep per Russ Woodroofe (trusting the validity of the sources, as I don't speak Macedonian). Sdkb talk 14:18, 6 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"