User:Ace111

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

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

Acraea terpsicore

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,828,580	6,117,630+	2,913,561+	2,614,421+	2,585,693+	2,159,152+	1,981,629+	1,955,556+	1,865,675+	1,616,949+

More than 63,048,259 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,145,191 articles.

Russia[edit]

Francois Esterhuyzen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Russia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Mark Bauman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: PROMO. The sourcing used is either primary or passing mentions. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").

I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html (walled).
https://www.axios.com/2021/07/10/dc-journalists-launch-media-company is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/grid-news-the-messenger-startup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, zero discussion of Bauman.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tech-exec-invests-in-digital-news-startup-launched-by-veteran-journalists.html is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman; everything seemingly about him is actually claims about the startup attributed to Bauman.
https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/DIGIDAY-MEDIA-AWARDS_Winners-Guide-2023_062923-2.pdf is a non-sequitur.
I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/media/laura-mcgann-has-reimagined-reporting-using-an-intersectional-structurally-focused-approach/ (walled). Given the article is about someone else, I can't imagine this is too useful for an article on Bauman.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181001-is-this-the-last-chance-to-see-the-titanic is useless for notability (too sparse, possibly wrong subject). Shit He Says, no actual discussion of Bauman. I should note that my own search for sources (string: "Mark Bauman") returned primarily non-responsive content, so I would be very concerned about conflating multiple Mark Baumans.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190519214223/https://www.virtualwonders.com/ is useless for notability (website homepage).
https://thinkwellgroup.com/blog/2020/08/21/exploring-the-details-with-virtual-wonders/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://wyse.gmu.edu/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I note this bio omits anything involving GRID or any media startups; one would think, given their journalism pedigree is mentioned, that these would be brought up.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/speaker/mark-bauman is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The image on this page looks like a completely different guy from the WYSE image, disregarding the glasses.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ng-live-engineering-exploration-technology/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-17-ca-cinefile17_-story.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Shit He Says, no discussion of Bauman.
https://www.documentary.org/column/festival-focus-national-geographic-all-roads-film-festival is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight).
https://www.media.mit.edu/events/media-lab-conversations-series-mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Event programme.
https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/about/our-people2/board-of-directors/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He's on the BoD for the Darwin Foundation.
https://www.asoc.org/about/our-team/#board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, BoD.
https://conservefish.org/news/marine-fish-conservation-network-welcomes-tom-sadler-new-deputy-director-mark-bauman-board-directors-member/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Press release from an organisation he was joining.
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/about/advisory-board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
We can't use https://wyse.gmu.edu/ (website homepage).
https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news-events/news/item.html?n=media-school-visiting-professors-include-award-winning-media-executive-and-npr-tv-critic is useless for notability (connexion to subject). News from a university who's bringing him on as a guest professor.
https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/creativity/2010/fall/gigapixel-show.shtml is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an article about an event CMU is holding.
We can't use either YouTube source (unknown provenance). YouTube videos must be (1) produced by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel to be linked to, let alone cited.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/globalforum2022 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Expo held by an organisation he's on the BoD of, and where he was scheduled to speak.
We can't use https://www.erskine.edu/2023/02/07/stukes-lecture-set-for-march-1/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (If this is a press release, it's useless for notability (no editorial oversight).)
https://www.iinteract.org/about-us is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
https://www.wliw.org/about/awards/ is a non-sequitur.
https://crossingborders.education/people/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.

None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Environment, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, here's a link for the NY Times article, it isn't about the person discussed here, mostly about the Grid website [1] Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - coverage is from primary sources, IMDB or passing mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already made many edits based on reviews and thought it was ready for mainspace. Can someone please help me redraft this article to meet Wikipedia standards? Terry Phillips (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless you find much better sources, any effort at redrafting would be futile. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Bauman news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without those, the subject cannot hope to meet WP:N or WP:BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Gemma Khalid[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Russian. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Danila Kashin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Sources in the article are in non-RS per Cite HIghligher or appear to be primary. I don't see any sources about this person in my searches Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Social media of all types, then off into non-RS territory. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Andrey Shishkin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Battle of Mala Tokmachka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment

1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.

2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.

3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.

4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.

5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Was it heavily reported as a military engagement that took place within a determined area and timespan? Can you provide sources suggesting this? Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)

I don't really see a necessity of splitting the article into separate battles. And the Kherson counteroffensive does not have any battle articles in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is battle of Davydiv Brid only in Kherson counteroffensive but there is. 79.186.59.115 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And for the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive there are the Battle of Kupiansk and the Second battle of Lyman Salfanto (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the events in Davydiv Brid took place in May-June 2022 while the Ukrainian operations in Kherson are usually understood to have begun in August, so this may be something of a mischaracterization. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Merge into Russian invasion of Ukraine, sources are poorly cited and lack notability. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
Weak keep I'm leaning to keep, but if if it's drafted... I wouldn't be surprised as well.Ivan Milenin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion leans delete at the time of this relist, but further participation would be beneficial for establishing a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 28 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)

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

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

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

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

(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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Shortcuts

WP:DSS
WP:DSSCIENCE
WP:AFD/SCI
WP:AFD/SCIENCE

Science[edit]

YARP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was "Appears to fail to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources." It was removed with the edit sumarry " sources exist, see talk". Those sources seem fine for verification, but they do nothing to establish notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Software. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would show notability which includes the sources on the article itself and the talk page. I didn't check each author for each paper, but there are four references on the article's talk page, and three of them are non-independent even without considering the reliability of the publishers: Giorgio Metta of the Sage reference is scientific director of the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (the same Metta, G. as in the article's references) and Lorenzo Natale of the 2016 Springer reference is a tenured senior scientist at the same institution, which is an institution that develops the program and owns the copyright for some of the material in the program. One of the authors of the 2014 Springer reference is Silvio Traversaro, who is one of the primary maintainers of the program's GitHub. The fourth reference is the Frontiers reference which appears to be independent, though confidence in the publisher isn't high due to considerations like the WikiProject Academic Journals assessment and an RSN disucssion (as well as non-robotics discussions including Public Health, Neurology, Genetics). The last potential reference in the article itself is this, which is not significant coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 27 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)

Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 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)
I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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.