Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasiia Kotliar


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

The result was delete. What The Supermind wants to tell us does not amount to an argument for keeping the article, insofar as it is even understandable.  Sandstein  10:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Anastasiia Kotliar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No even 1 and 2 sources fully covered about her biography and career. These withstand the article themselves. The Supermind (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first is a non-reliable source, and the second is a primary source, neither of which go to notability. Onel 5969  TT me 23:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both detail about her career and life and you have to see the content of site, not necessarily the site itself. You can see inserted references contents that have identical information about the subject. That can pass GNG. The Supermind (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There are not enough reliable, secondary indepth sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look . Again shows identical information. The Supermind (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Could someone with the relevant languages comment on the several Ukrainian and Russian language sources cited in the article? Also on the nature of the Smoloskip literary prize? Furius (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can read Russian and google translate helps. Source analysis as follows:
 * source1 - student report of a university event published in a university publication. Neither independent nor RS
 * Source2 - I wondered why an arts site with just 2 reporters could manage so much content but in the about us section they confirmed that they accept user generated content and submissions. Given this, a long over detailed piece with no byline does not feel at all independent or suitable as an rs for notability,
 * source3 - aggregator source that appears to be a mirror of the ua.wikipedia page but with no byline I don’t see it as independent or reliable if it predates the ua article, the later is a copyvio
 * source4 - university site again
 * source5 - a uk based ukrainian aggregator site that is another wikipedia site and this one clearly lists wikipedia as the source.
 * the award might be notable but we have no article and ua has lots of red links in their article. I’d suggest we were better trying to get ab article on the award off the ground rather than trying to use that to justify a blp with no rs and lots of indications if self serving sources. ′′′delete′′′ Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you see this please? The Supermind (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2021 (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.