User:Ace111

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

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

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).

Википедия
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.

Picture of the day

Tarantula Nebula

Photograph credit: NASA, ESA, Space Telescope Science Institute

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,823,691	6,118,062+	2,909,560+	2,611,555+	2,584,702+	2,158,365+	1,979,278+	1,952,851+	1,863,507+	1,614,922+

More than 62,977,588 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,136,108 articles.

Russia[edit]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete 3 of the sources are primary. The other is routine coverage of his unfortunate death. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (2nd 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment The first AfD for this article can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it. The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed. The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident. Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash, standing at 16. These two factors combined can be sought to keep this article in particular. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep An accident with 23 fatalities is definitely not a "common, everyday, ordinary item". Skyshiftertalk 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fyodor Chernozubov[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Ck references on his article in ru.wp. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. General who appears to have plenty of sourcing on Russian Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Grigori Chernozubov[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 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)

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sergei Magerovski[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment - This is a misreading of WP:NSKATE. Subjects can still be notable if they separately meet WP:GNG as is potentially the case here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian interference in European politics[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Czech Republic, and Russia. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: There's been talk of Russian influence at the European Parliament. I've found a few sources in French [2], [3], [4]. Perhaps we need to re-work the article, but this is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: What, the growing menace of the tyrannical onslaught of Russian destruction potentially threatening all of Europe is not notable?

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

Giorgi Elizbarashvili[edit]

(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)
@Shinadamina: Prior to February 2022, appearing in a top-level league or international game was enough to guarantee notability for individual players. An RfC on the guideline that month removed all such notability criteria from NSPORT, but people still invoke those obsoleted criteria because they haven't looked at the guideline as of late. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Otar Eloshvili[edit]

(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 [5] 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)

Battle of Urozhaine[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Clerical comment: Article was nominated for deletion (AFD) less than 2 hours after creation, with no clear WP:BEFORE considerations. As of this comment, article is sourced two secondary reliable sources. WP:RAPID attempt at deletion, partially using WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST rational in said rapid deletion attempt. This is not a comment regarding a keep or delete, just clerical to establish a brief timeline. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:34, 9 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]

(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)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 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)

Support merge of encylopedic content to Southern Ukraine campaign and Huliaipole, if not already present there.

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]

(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)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 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]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:49, 5 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)

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 30 April 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, Serves an informative purpose, seems to have decent coverage Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:23, 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)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST, and as a content fork of List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I agree with Liz that there is not a lot of policy-based rationale on either side here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Not WP:LISTCRUFT, has enough RS, and serves a historical purpose. Florificapis (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Shortcuts

Science[edit]

Quantum weirdness[edit]

(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 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 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)

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, India, and Assam. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 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)

List of explorations[edit]

(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)
A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 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)

Okhotnykovo Solar Park[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanh Cong Dinh[edit]

(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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Science, Vietnam, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. What the nom said, and what I noted in the edit summaries, and then there's the human level--why would you lower yourself to this. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Philip Thorpe Priestley[edit]

(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_creep^Talk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews. I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Alexandru Sorin Biris[edit]

(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)
This is your only edit on the project, SleeplessSeatle. How did you even find your way here to this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 13 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

^ 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
^ 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)
N.B., this page seems to have both been a subject of vandalism, and have had votes added by editors who have not contributed much (or even at all) elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.

[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]

[1]

[2]