Jump to content

User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MediaWiki version 1.44.0-wmf.11 (5bb154a).

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).
WikipediaВикипедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.
I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.
This user is from the planet Earth.
This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤
This user contributes using Firefox.
John Henry Turpin
Photograph credit: unknown photographer; restored by Adam Cuerden
The Signpost
24 December 2024

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
English Sinugboanon Deutsch Français Svenska Nederlands Русский Español Italiano Polski
6,938,983 6,116,867+ 2,977,391+ 2,658,221+ 2,601,278+ 2,176,951+ 2,019,052+ 2,002,455+ 1,899,587+ 1,644,014+
More than 64,261,530 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,296,249 articles.


Russia

[edit]

Lada Revolution

[edit]
Lada Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

hoax, the car in the image doesn't exist in real life (only source is dead) Kecskemét 6000 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

English International School Moscow

[edit]
English International School Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Northern Moonlight 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Kirill Goryunov

[edit]
Kirill Goryunov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entrepreneur still fails WP:NBIO despite being un-BLAR'ed three months ago. GTrang (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Enterprises in the Soviet Union

[edit]
Enterprises in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nuke the unreferenced text I wrote out of my head in 2006 and since then it became even messier. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Vilnius (1812)

[edit]
Battle of Vilnius (1812) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an AI-generated hoax about a fictional "Battle of Vilnius". The absolute majority of the article does not describe an actual battle but instead discusses broader aspects of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, logistical issues, and unrelated details, going as far as to mention Napoleon's exile to Saint Helena. In reality, there was no significant combat in Vilnius during this time. As the article itself shows, the city was abandoned by the Russians and captured by the French with essentially no resistance. The only actual statement about the "Battle of Vilnius" in the whole article is:


Yet the article absurdly claims that:

As for the "second battle" of Vilnius (the distinction between the first and second battles is only made in the infobox), once again there is no evidence of a battle:


The article is also AI-generated: for example, subsections like "Weather and Logistical Struggles" and "Supply Issues" (both under two lines long) follow a predictable pattern, typical of content generated by AI models. The "Artifacts" section, also clearly AI-generated, is backed by a reliable source that makes no mention of this so-called battle, simply stating that Napoleonic artifacts were found in Vilnius. Other issues include a "Background" section that explains how the campaign "reshaped European geopolitics", mostly addressing events that happened after the "battle", unrelated images (including one with no caption at all), and absurd army sizes and casualty numbers (quoted above) in the infobox. Excommunicato (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G3. The recent history of the article should give anyone pause, and the writing style clearly smacks of ChatGPT. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above evidence. I think Jeschaton's comment about the recent history might be referring to the large number of unsourced changes, including corrections to names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I was referring to the recent creation date of the article, allegedly about a vital battle that would have reasonably had an article made years ago. But yes, these edits are troubling. jeschaton (immanentize) 02:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have added precautionary tags on articles they have been involved with creating: Bad Zwischenahn Airfield, Winter Airfield, Middle Guard (Napoleonic) – The Grid (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad Zwischenahn Airfield looks suspicious, with its extremely short paragraphs and an apparent contradiction about how it was repurposed by Canada after it was destroyed. I can't find any reliable evidence that "Luftdienstverband" (mentioned in the infobox) existed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the above !votes. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I don't know much, if anything really, about Napoleon, so at first glance I would have believed this page was a real battle that happened. The fact that it's ai generated is upsetting. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lithuania and Poland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. I noticed that on pl wiki, a few months ago an IP created a slightly different, seemingly a bit better article about what our article describeds as "9–10 December 1812 (second battle)". (I've connected interwiki). While that article doesn't quote much academic sources, the websites it quotes are likely not AI generated - minor Polish newspaper from 2012 [1], or [2] (can't figure out when that was created, however). Those sources certainly contradict the nom's (Shellwood) claim that "In reality, there was no significant combat in Vilnius during this time.", although Shellwood is correct with regards to the first battle (whcih, indeed, was not a thing). The second battle (ie. the proper first and only battle of Vilnius of 1812) is likely notable. Whether anything can be rescued from the mess nominated here, I am unsure. WP:TNT may be warranted, and overview of all articles created by that user may also be needed. Ping User:Marcelus, whom I recall being interested in similar topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I'm not the nom. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Shellwood My bad, @Excommunicato Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, @Piotrus, for tagging me in this discussion. Indeed, in 1812, Napoleon aimed for a decisive battle with the Russians on Lithuanian territory, preferably near Vilnius, but such a battle never occurred. The Russians retreated, burning bridges and food depots behind them. However, the occupation of Vilnius was not entirely without conflict. A skirmish took place between Rykantai and Vilnius, as well as clashes between Polish and French cavalry and Russian Cossacks in Antakalnis. In the latter skirmish, Octave de Ségur was captured by the Russians, becoming the first prisoner of the 1812 campaign. Civilians, mainly students, also fought against Russian troops leaving the city.
Similarly, in December, there were no major battles but numerous engagements, including a significant skirmish near Ponary, where retreating French forces lost a large portion of their convoy and the imperial treasury.
Therefore, I propose moving the article to Napoleon's entry into Vilnius in 1812 and potentially creating a separate article titled Occupation of Vilnius by Russian Forces in 1812. Napoleon's entry into Vilnius was an important political event and, as such, deserves its own dedicated article. Marcelus (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree. KeyMen12 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for my mistake; I was misled by a list of Vilnius battles that mentioned the Battle of Vilnius (1812). After doing some research, I found that the Battle of Vilnius (1812) is not widely recognized as a distinct or formal battle in historical records. KeyMen12 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@KeyMen12 Checking Polish sources, this is not a common term either. Here there is a brief mention that Napoleon wanted to create it in the summer of 1812, but the Russians evaded contact outside small skirmishes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If you want to work on this, check [3] and even more importantly, check the works this cites, since the reliability of this website is unclear. Of course, you'd need to be able to get offline Polish works and read them... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I do wonder why you did not simply translate the article from pl wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • HARD DELETE: This is clearly WP:G3 and is quite frankly an insult. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax and essay - if anything, this would properly be titled about the retreat of Napoleon's army through Vilnius. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per WP:G3. The page is a brazen hoax masquerading as fact. TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Xenia Benivolski

[edit]
Xenia Benivolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This art critic and writer does not appear notable. She has written a lot as a writer which is in the article but that is all. 🄻🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for writers and critics. Benivolski has contributed to major publications such as The Wire and Frieze, received significant recognition through the national Gallery of Canada, and been involved in notable projects. There is coverage of her work in reliable sources, such as Artforum and e-flux Journal. I am happy to improve the article by adding these citations to address the concerns raised. Adeline2018 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I see lots of writing by her, and interviews of her, but not references about her, which would constitute significant coverage. Please clarify and "ping" me. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Ilya Romanko

[edit]
Ilya Romanko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Article created for PR from a disposable account. Deleted twice in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 11

[edit]
Aeroflot Flight 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". Other than databases (tertiary sources), there exists no reliable secondary sources that provide significant in-depth and sustained continued coverage of the event, with the occurrence having no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. This article from CHITA.ru was the only piece of non-tertiary coverage that I could find, but as stated before, it doesn't provide significant nor in-depth coverage of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as a commercial flight with a number of fatalities it surely meets notability criteria. I don't really see what the problem with the sources is either.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just because it was a fatal commercial flight doesn't mean it's automatically notable. This sort of argument is not enshrined in any notability guideline. As stated above, WP:GNG requires that sources be secondary. Databases (including those cited in the article) are considered tertiary sources and therefore do not contribute to notability. It's been discussed a few times at AfD, WP:RS/N and WT:AV and the general consensus was that Airdisaster.ru isn't reliable. Same goes for Russianplanes.net, which was also discussed at WP:RS/N Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep there are times where strict interpretations of WP:GNG don't make sense, and this is clearly one of them. This was a major aviation accident in the Soviet Union, and while I'm not easily able to find modern sources, and it may even be hard to find sources at the time, this is a detailed referenced article and is clearly an article that you would want to have in a set of articles about aviation disasters in 1957. Even though that's a little bit of an WP:IAR vote, I feel strongly enough to say that deleting this would clearly make Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Isn't the existence of a topic based on the existence of reliable secondary sources? Just because you find an article useful doesn't mean that it's notable. This is just a WP:USEFUL WP:JN argument asserting notability and importance, without supporting proof, not based on notability guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not always, that is why Wikipedia started out with both SNGs and the GNG. If you ask a slightly different question - which plane crashes from 1957 from around the world should we have an article on? This one would clearly be a result of the set due to the number of fatalities involved - it was the 11th worst accident of the year and 1st in the Soviet Union. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The existence of a topic on Wikipedia relies on the existence of reliable secondary sources. Notability cannot solely be established with "deadliest in x country" "X worst accident/deadliest in 1957" type of arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not a universal rule, though, especially because it can create bias in specific situations such as this one. It's common sense to state a major aviation disaster should be eligible for its own article. For instance, the Soviet Union wouldn't have necessarily had a free press able to report on this disaster at the time, but we can still write a reliable article on the topic, and it's arguably necessary in order to write a complete encyclopedia on the topic of aviation disasters. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    If WP:GNG isn't a universal rule, I guess it might be time to create an article on every single occurrence which has an entry on the Aviation Safety Network which has around 250,000. [4]
    Censorship or not, if an occurrence doesn't generate the coverage necessary for a standalone page, there should simply not be an article on it (that's also not a valid excuse. Just look at the article of Aeroflot Flight 3352).
    Per WP:GNG, ... not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, [...] and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
    Regarding Aeroflot Flight 11, databases and a single article by CHITA.ru are the only currently available sources. Put it all together and you have an article that doesn't even meet WP:GNG. It's definitely not common sense to say that even though the sources don't meet WP:GNG standards, we should have an article on it solely because the crash killed [X] people. Just because it happened doesn't mean it's notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your assertion is a logical fallacy - just because we'd keep this one means we'd have to keep 250,000 articles. This is one of the most important aviation disasters of 1957, according to Facebook there's still even a standing memorial to the victims, we've got a good article on it, and it's from an area of the world where we can't necessarily expect GNG to be easily met. Deleting this would create bias and make Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not stating that we should create hundreds of thousands of new articles if this article is kept. It is specifically your fallacious comment, stating that it is not a universal rule that secondary sources are not needed to establish notability when that is exactly what WP:GNG asks for, that implies that whether or not a subject is notable, an article could be created. It is unfortunate that sources are extremely lacking, however we are not here to judge whether deleting this would create a bias or supposedly make Wikipedia worse. If a topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, it shouldn't have a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's not fallacious, as meeting GNG is not the only pathway to keeping (or deleting) an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Except WP:NEVENT does ask for WP:GNG to be met, which means that an event article must meet WP:GNG to at least justify its notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NEVENT specifically says Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. A major air disaster falls under the latter. SportingFlyer T·C 06:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you prove that the accident had a significant lasting effect, meaning that the event was the precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Twenty-seven fatalities in an airliner crash isn't notable??? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fatalities dont determine notablity, coverage does. if the accident was not sufficently covered then it could be deleted, as we have said before, Russia is rather secretive and tight lipped about aviation accidents that have happened in their country, especially these old ones that happened during the Soviet Union era that have been mostly if not entirely forgotten about by the public.
    @Clarityfiend Lolzer3k 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Plane crashes with 27 fatalities are notable, as they killed multiple people, not sure why you think they aren't notable. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep and rework. Sourcing is definitely borderline at best, and googling "aeroflot flight 11" only pops up 2 real results out of 8. 2 sources is not no sources, but I haven't checked to see if those are at all reliable. guninvalid (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also like to add: several people here have brought up that 27 deaths should be considered notable. I must caution that this is not based in Wikipedia policy. WP:AIRCRASH can be construed as permitting this, but AIRCRASH is not policy, and it explicitly warns that it should not be used in AfD discussions. guninvalid (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The incident would almost certainly have more sources in Russian, where disasters are typically known as "(Aircraft type) catastrophe near (place)" and not by its flight number. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If there are more than certainly secondary sources in Russian, could you cite them? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Gennady Degtyarev

[edit]
Gennady Degtyarev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Aleksei Kulashko

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aleksei Kulashko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey)

[edit]
Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unscourced BLP for a player who never played in a major league and does not meet guidelines at WP:SPORTBASIC. Kimikel (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sourcing on him aside from prospect sites. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Possible keep. His Eurohockey profile indicates he played 25 years professionally. Surely there are sources in foreign languages? For example: Polish Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia Searching in Russian for hockey-related articles is a bit difficult due to the businessman Alexander Medvedev's involvement in hockey. Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) also coached the U18 national team for Iceland. Did anyone search in a foreign language? It's rather frustrating that nobody has mentioned what was searched. Providing more details is helpful for working together. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried searching in English articles as well as Icelandic. I did a basic search on the Belarusian Telegraph Agency and it yielded nothing. Plus the other wikis don't have sources that attribute to a WP:BLP article anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Van der Bellen family

[edit]
Van der Bellen family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Van der Bellen family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Keep The family has seen various coverage in press [5] and books [6] [7] so that its notability passes GNG. Axisstroke (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    These are not enough to pass GNG. The first one is not about the family, but rather about an individual member. The second is about a "Van der Bellen family" in the sense of a nuclear family, not the whole noble family. The last snippet of text is not long enough to understand the context in which "Van der Bellen family" is being used. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, these two passing mentions are not WP:SIGCOV. The second is a snippet from Alexander Van der Bellen's family history. But just because he's the current president of Austria doesn't mean his entire family going back centuries is now suddenly notable. Given the fact that presidents in Austria are elected, while noble families establish membership by birth, these two things are still entirely unrelated, or only trivially related. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right there are previous several notable members of the family listed in the baltic biographical lexicon. Axisstroke (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Besides named president: Aleksander von der Bellen [8] [9], Gustav Friedrich Eduard von der Bellen [10], Eugen von der Bellen [11] and the familiy entry [12]. Axisstroke (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - AfD is not for improvement. There are three notable members of the family who are name-checked in the article, and more found since. That's enough for me. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. This family has received a significant amount of attention. The Austrian president isn't its only notable member. His grandfather, Aleksander von der Bellen, was a prominent politician in Russia in his own right. Indiscriminately adding CN tags, without a rationale, to uncontroversial information is not helpful. --Tataral (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep The Khilkov article was not deleted but merely converted to a dab, and the nominator cannot assume that anyone knows about descendant 'red flags' at all coming in. Bearian's added sources along with Tataral's concerns make this deletion nomination a bit IDLI with the use of "article" in sarcasm quotes and 'nothing of value'. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Shuvalov

[edit]
Shuvalov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:GUNREL (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#genealogy.eu), WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Shuvalov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg  "Шуваловы" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article in Russian Wikipedia has a ton of references, if one is interested in improving. "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik..." - this family never claimed great antiquity, for what I know, and it was never listed among Rurikids. Nevertheless it was the "crème de la crème" of the Russian aristocracy from the reign of Empress Elizabeth until the end of the empire. Ghirla-трёп- 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. This is one of very few Russian noble families which don't claim descent from Rurik. NLeeuw (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    You need to read up on both Russian history and genealogy to make such odd claims. Ghirla-трёп- 09:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - no valid reason given for deletion; there's no wild claim in the article about descent from early modern times. In fact, it lists several verifiable notable members. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Romodanovsky family

[edit]
Romodanovsky family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Romodanovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg  "Ромодановские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand what is questioned in this nomination. The notability of one of the top boyar families? "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag" - utter tosh. The family has been extinct for 300 years, so it does not claim anything. But every source on Russian genealogy (starting from the Gosudarev Rodoslovets of 1555) confirms that the Romodanovsky family is indeed Rurikid. Ghirla-трёп- 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are added to the article and written up in context. Potentially this is notable, but right now it's unsourced. I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually a famous family that deserves a separate page, as follows from Russian language sources on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The most famous representative of this family was of course Fyodor Romodanovsky, "a monstrum by appearance, a vicious tyrant by character". He liked personally beheading people, sometimes several in a row. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Obolensky

[edit]
Obolensky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Obolensky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg  "Оболенские, княжеский род" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Noble families, especially princely families are by definition notable, as their members are listed in official genealogies and studied by multitude of genealogists. It is irrelevant if the princes Obolensky were actually descendants of Rurik, Imperial Russia considered them as such, as exemplified by their use of the title prince and their inclusion in the Velvet Book.
    I read Nederlandse Leeuw's rant on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov. It reads like an anti-royalist, French revolutionary attack on nobility in general. Unfortunately the Ancien Régime was non-egalitarian. Social status and thus notability followed family lines. There are corresponding family articles is six other languages. The Russian language article list about 30 family members with Wikipedia articles. The corresponding category has 106 articles and 15 subcategories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I may have employed much sarcasm in my rationale on the preceding AfD, but I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Petri Krohn. We have lots of articles about notable families. In the old days, the aristocracy had all the political, social, and economic power. One could say that we are living through similar circumstances. In any case, there are literally dozens of notable people who have this last name, and the longstanding consensus is to bunch them into an article as well as a category. Also, before proposing deleting an article, see if it can be expanded from other languages and do at least a basic Internet search. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current "keep" arguments are rather weak: just being a noble family is not enough for notability, we need multiple independent sources that treat the subject in-depth. A listing is not enough. Perhaps the articles in other languages provide some useful sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

[edit]
House of Lobanov-Rostovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [13] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[14]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.
Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Viktoria Vasilieva

[edit]
Viktoria Vasilieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep she has participated in many high-level regional competitions, and has earned metals. Article needs more sources which can be easily done. Marleeashton (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
All medals were junior-level, none of which qualify as notable per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe that the intention of these guidelines were to be overly prescriptive. I see you have nominated many gymnast articles, while they don't meet the 'more likely to receive coverage' point they should be judged individually on their merits, not mass removed because they're less likely to receive coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
We keep biographical articles (or not) based on whether they meet set standards for notability, not out of our personal, idiosyncratic notions as to what's important or not. Participation standards have been deprecated sports-wide, not even medalling at the Olympics is a guarantee of meeting standards, and if you believe there are valid sources that meet the GNG and provide significant coverage to the subject, proffer them. Ravenswing 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I couldn't find any independent WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The corresponding Russian article is also devoid of quality sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see any WP:SIGCOV from what has been shown here in this discussion. A lot of trivial mentions. Let'srun (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that GNG is met and no sources yet provided by keep voter.Canary757 (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. These: [15] (Match TV), [16], [17] (both Sportbox.ru / Match TV), [18], [19] (both Sport Express), [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (all Sports.ru) are more than enough.
    I actually spent 10 minutes on this. But you can search like this →→→ https://yandex.ru/search/?text=Виктория+Васильева if you want to find more. Find her profiles on big sports sites and then look in the "News" section or search by tag. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    These are all trivial coverage, barely a paragraph. First one talks about her partner's illness. Rest are unimpressive. I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A note to the above voters. If you can't do a proper search, don't vote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    A note to you; if you cannot acquaint yourself with the appropriate guidelines governing notability, don't vote at AfD. Ravenswing 06:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: A classic case of citation bombing above in utter ignorance of the provisions of the GNG and SIGCOV. The former holds "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The latter holds ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Interviews of the subject do not count. Namedrops ("Figure skater Roman Zaporozhets, who competes in pairs skating with Victoria Vasilyeva, told Match TV that the pair withdrew from the Grand Prix stage in Kazan due to his illness"), fleeting mentions and routine match coverage do not count. Lists of stats do not count. Ravenswing 06:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Sources have been brought into this discussion yesterday and an assessment would be helpful rather than a quick dismissal. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've checked the first six sources above and the last one, there are trivial mentions, barely more than a paragraph each, simply confirming she's participated in xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I checked each and every one of them as well; I just didn't bulletpoint each one. Ravenswing 06:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing found for this skater; a junior-level bronze medalist would barely make notability, IF we had extensive sourcing. With only what amount to blog posts, three lines of coverage and the like, we don't have the coverage needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Delete as per @Ravenswing and @Oaktree b. The additional sources provided do not amount to the level of coverage required.
    Shrug02 (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Anastasia Gubanova (pair skater)

[edit]
Anastasia Gubanova (pair skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Others

[edit]

Draft

[edit]
Shortcuts


Science

[edit]

Dave Farina

[edit]
Dave Farina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; no serious sources — Moriwen (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Gennady Degtyarev

[edit]
Gennady Degtyarev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics

[edit]
Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This international non-governmental research institute for physical sciences fails to meet NCORP and is full of Original research. BoraVoro (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

[edit]
Living Textbook of Hand Surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not a book as usuual - Living Textbook of Hand Surgery is work in progress as a peer reviewed platform teaching hand surgery using text and videos for surgical techniques. Maybee category "book" is misleading. Woller (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't pass the GNG either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: including a potential merger target, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion

[edit]

Science Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Ace111&oldid=812247595"