Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kateryna Babkina


 * 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 no consensus. Relisted twice, consensus shifted toward "keep" although a clear consensus has not been established (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kateryna Babkina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability questionable. Laber□T 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine -related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * . 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't these 2,000 news articles suggest the applicable notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A valid point. It's important to keep in mind that part of the Wikipedia Notability guideline page states, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", which is located at WP:NEXIST. It's unclear if the !vote above is based upon source searches or only those presented in the article. North America1000 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, these are from the ukrainian wikiarticle - . BBC ukraine interview in which babkina is interviewed about her work;, BBC ukraine review of her book Sonia - "But, obviously, Katerina Babkina work is an attempt - albeit for the first time and not very clearly perceptible - speak of lost souls modern young soul, the search for something different, better and more meaningful than about here and now, attempts to find destiny and God. Oh, Allah, Allah is with him."(apologies for gtranslate), here are some more reports/interviews/discussions of what Babkina is doing - , Ukraine Vogue "Kate Babkyna of the new book 'of painkillers and sleeping pills"; , Chytomo - Cultural and publishing project "Interview Kate Babkin: #Bookchallenge_ua on how to make your time more constructive"; , an excerpt from "Painkillers and sleeping pills appearing in The Kenyon Review; , "Story of a Dress by PODOLYAN: Kateryna Babkina", being a model/exhibit(?) at 2014 Ukraine fashion week; , Eastern Partnership Culture Congress, Report on the state of culture and NGO in Ukraine, "Report on the state of culture and NGO in Ukraine is a proper guide through cultural sector and NGO, composed of articles, analyses, brief reports and interviews with renowned experts and practitioners of these sectors. Among the authors we have: .. Kateryna Babkina, ..". the gsearch yields a lot more, including numerous appearances of her as a poet, (so close to meeting 4. of WP:NARTIST?), nearly all in ukrainian so another editor can go thru them Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. has found ample sources and my own searches confirm that she is in the news. Again, not proficient in the language, though. Also, the article needs a lot of work and seems like bad translation. Also, she has a German wiki page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above. I didn't make a bolded recommendation earlier because I was treating this as a discussion rather than a vote, but it seems that for my comments to be taken into account I need to treat this as a vote. Maybe we should stop pretending that decisions are not made by voting, because the common practice is that these so-called discussions are treated as polls. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * while the 1820 results for gnews looks impressive they are not necessarily relevant to this subject. For example, the 1st hit on page 10 of the gnews results is an article entitled "The Constitutional Court said the Council that he can determine when to change the Constitution" discusses various aspects of the Ukrainian constitution, there is no mention of Babkina.  similarly the 2nd hit entitled "The writer, an intellectual Oksana Uzhgorod Lutsyshyna presents his new long-awaited novel "Love Life"", again the article does not mention Babkina, the page does have a link to an article "Mrs. Babkin presented in Uzhgorod new book "Happy naked people"", which incidently was a pr event for one of her books. of course, this does not mean that none of the articles are irrelevant notabilitywise. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at page 1 rather than page 10 of those results you will find plenty of coverage of Babkina in independent reliable sources. The fact that there are false positives doesn't create any "anti-notability" that cancels out the notability shown by the sources that do have coverage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is lots on her but this article needs a complete re-write to get it up to Wiki standards. I will take on this job; I will have it done within the next couple of days (or hours if children give me time!) ツStacey (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've kindly delegated this task to User:Worm That Turned - I'm sure it will look brilliant in no time! ツStacey (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've done so. Looks a bit better! WormTT(talk) 14:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly does, Good job, Worm. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (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.