User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.43.0-wmf.11 (7df99f2).

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

George Washington

Painting credit: John Trumbull

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,845,328	6,117,266+	2,923,366+	2,621,124+	2,590,213+	2,161,563+	1,987,136+	1,964,073+	1,870,928+	1,621,051+

More than 63,270,680 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,170,599 articles.

Russia[edit]

Kariokskoe of battle[edit]

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

A minor skirmish at best. Existing citations are all non-independent, 19th-century primary sources, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Freedom of Nations![edit]

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

There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The European Council on Foreign Relations citation seems perfectly admissible for GNG in particular. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete as it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Plenty of one-time conferences have gained sustained notability (e.g., the Bandung Conference), but this article does not qualify. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Its sources almost entirely fail the crucial point of "Independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. See WP:TASS for example. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast[edit]

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

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 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 redirect‎ to Oreshkovo airfield. Star Mississippi 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Mansur (bear)[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable animal. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV - press reporting was fleeting and fairly trivial. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Oreshkovo airfield. The references are more than adequate to support a short paragraph there. Ingratis (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 26 June 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.

Irina Nikolaeva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There appears to be a professor and a fashion model with this same name that pop up in the search for sources, but I have no idea if those are the same person. I find nothing about a figure skater; this fails notability, Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The corresponding article in Russian has some decent coverage of this subject. At the very least, there is enough to meet WP:NBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there are reliable sources you've found, please list them in this discussion or add them to the article, don't just allude to their existence,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Sources discussing the subject are found at [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]] Let'srun (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Nothing significant in any of those sources. #2 is a fan blog. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Of the sources linked by Let'srun above, 1 is a profile on the (defunct) website of her skating coach (and thus not independent), 2 and 3 are blogs, and 4 is not WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article don't qualify toward WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT, and as nominator points out she doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. If more sources are found, please ping me and I'll take another look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Angara Airlines Flight 200[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.

"of this fatality-causing incident."

Per the event criteria, criterion #4, _{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.}

There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.

You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See [6], that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}

Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.

Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.

Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}

WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Airplane crashes do not have inherent notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to Angara Airlines#Accidents rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Typo. Fixed in the source. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Still, which sources are you referring to? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning this debate. It is annoying when nominators try arguing with each single editor who "dares" to disagree with their opinion. Moderators had their say in the intro. This intro wasn't unreasonably written, yet that doesn't guarantee that each editor will agree with you. We all do our research and bring our knowledge of policies, guidelines, subject matter, and other experience to a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - I found some evidence of WP:LASTING from mention 4 years later in The Sunday Times -https://archive.is/OZXqk. I believe this crash may be plausible (barely) notable as part of a wider phenomenon cited by the times of Antonov An-24 airplanes being disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about lasting effects or lasting coverage? From what I can tell, this is more of a brief mention, part of a wider range of An-24 accidents, since this was the first An-24 accident since Angara Airlines Flight 200. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to everyone who disagrees with your nomination? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Artur Ocheretny[edit]

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne[edit]

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fermor (Russian nobility)[edit]

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

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews^[1] as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Shortcuts

Science[edit]

Ninovium[edit]

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

This is a content fork of Oganesson#Unconfirmed iscovery claims and isotopes of oganesson#Cold fusion, and there is no evidence in any reliable sources of "ninovium" being proposed as a name. Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be deleted outright, but a case could be made for a plausible redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
delete, no results for 'ninovium' in google scholar, and just one in google books. Not sure that redirect is needed. Artem.G (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Rename, The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

merge & redirect to Victor Ninov.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge & redirect to either Victor Ninov or Oganesson per Talk:Ninovium discussion.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Oganesson, main article can take more information. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Oganesson. I doubt that this term has actually seen much use beyond the joking thumbnail of a YouTube video. We shouldn't propagate the idea that ninovium was actually in contention as a potential element name. XOR'easter (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

List of German scientists[edit]

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and Germany. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is the most egregious example of OR and synth that I ever saw here. "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be? How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries? (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.) How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes? Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count. And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, and Lists. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either. If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available? 14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)". If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly. Procyon117 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used? Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners. Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population. No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR. Artem.G (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's also definitely an issue. Procyon117 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
what exactly do you propose to merge? The whole list is unsourced and OR. Artem.G (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It is actually sourced. Well, if there is nothing to merge, that's fine. One can just make it a redirect.My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is basic division, not original research. These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate. You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion. In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country, so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians. No sources, no OR, just division. Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division... Artem.G (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
That's completely nonsensical. WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources? It's not even a meaningful figure—the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter. If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country. Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is still basic arithmetic (WP:CALC), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research. This is the most mundane "selection", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number. You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point on "basic arithmetic", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense? why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population? Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics? This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population. Artem.G (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a violation of WP:NOR with a dose of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Yes, the arithmetic may be trivial, but the choice of which numbers to do arithmetic upon takes this outside what policy can support. WP:CALC does not justify this. The prototypical case for applying WP:CALC is taking a figure that a source reports in miles and converting that to kilometres. This isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

God Sent Me[edit]

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

A self-published autobiography about Selman v. Cobb County School District, with no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, Education, Christianity, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the Skeptical Inquirer review is sigcov, so it's untrue that there's none, but if that's it then it would fail notability. It needs at least two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: There's a review in The Atlanta Jewish Times on pg. 34 of this issue. This would normally be enough, but there's an interview with the author directly above the review, so I don't think this would be independent enough to count towards NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the above, a very weak keep. Without knowing more about that organization's processes, the independence may be up in the air, but they look like a reputable newspaper and strictly speaking I don't think interviewing the author is a sure sign that it's non independent, they could have simply sought it out. But yeah I won't die on this hill PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Jacobs, Michael (2016-10-21). "Time for a Disclaimer". The Atlanta Jewish Times. Vol. 91, no. 41. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Issuu.
  I consider the review to be independent of the subject as it contains negative content. The review notes: "Selman's book is exhaustive and exhausting in its details on the struggle against the sticker, especially in the extensive use of court testimony. Even if he's right, however, Selman is hardly an objective source. His book is not, and does not pretend to be, a dispassionate history. As he says repeatedly, he wants to wake up Americans to the threat of theocracy, but he risks putting some readers to sleep by emphasizing advocacy over information. Still, Selman has created, if not a textbook, an invaluable resource for anyone who wants a reminder that science and religion can coexist, but not in the same classroom."
2. Branch, Glenn (September–October 2015). "A Textbook Case in Georgia Remembered" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 39, no. 5. pp. 59–60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The review notes: "Selman also understates the role of Kitzmiller v. Dover in forcing the school board to settle. ... God Sent Me is self-published, and the lack of a firm editorial hand is intermittently detectable. Generally following a straight chronological narrative, Selman’s writing is serviceable and often engaging, although there are occasional patches of purple prose: for example at one point he writes, somewhat ridiculously, “The life I was living was in a comfortable but contaminated Petri dish where the leprosy of theocracy was threatening to break out and become epidemic” (17). Fans of Leo Rosten will be amused by Selman’s pervasive use of expressions from Yiddish, accompanied by helpful glosses, although “farblondjet” is oddly spelled as “fablunjet” (175). There is no index and no bibliography, and references appear variously in footnotes and in running text, which is mildly frustrating."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ramil Hashimli[edit]

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

Delete. This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:58, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: The {{subst:afd2}} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize[edit]

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

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [7]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."
2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"
  From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."
3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."
4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[8] and Ta Kung Pao[9] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Extreme Engineering[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Science, Engineering, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."
2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."
3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."
4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."
5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."
6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."
7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

reliable sources

Extreme Engineering

Build It Bigger

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

reliable sources

independent

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I am convinced the new sources are enough for notability. 'WITHDRAW' DonaldD23 talk to me 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment This discussion was closed due to the nominator's withdrawal of their nomination. I have reverted this closure due to the earlier "Delete" vote which has to be considered in a closure. This is especially true, I believe as it comes from one of our regular AFD participants. Any closer is free to close this discussion on the basis of assessing the content of the entire discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion[edit]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

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] ttps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

[1]