Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svitlana Boytsaniuk


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The reprinting of the same information across the te.20minut.ua and teren.in.ua articles, the only two sources presented as good in the keep-!voted source analysis, significantly undermines the case for keep. signed,Rosguill talk 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Svitlana Boytsaniuk

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article fails considerably on the criteria of WP:GNG. There is any significant achievement in verifiable and reliable sources to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Chiserc (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof; nothing for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations by the same nominator, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that Boytsaniuk does not appear to meet WP:PROF, although The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. could certainly be interpreted such that dean of dentistry qualifies. However, I don't think that's necessary, because she appears to pass GNG:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All the best, Akakievich (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on the whether the sources analysis supports notability enough to Keep this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, largely per Akakievich's analysis which I find persuasive. For benefit of future searchers/improvers, I would also note in passing that the name appears to be more commonly romanized as "Boitsaniuk". (Here is an English-language but probably non-RS writeup of her wartime project.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject does not meet NPROF (a dean of a school is never the highest-level administrative position), and the coverage above comprises two identical articles on free dentistry that contain very little independent coverage of her; most of it is quotes from her or otherwise repetition of what she has said/felt. The only content that can make an interview count towards GNG is that in which the author independently discusses the topic significantly and in detail, and that is not the case here. And even if either of those articles was SIGCOV, GNG still requires multiple such sources demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED attention over a lengthy period. That is definitely not achieved here either. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete largely per JoelleJay. The two sources Akakievich list as GNG-passing above are the identical story so that is only one source.  I do see enough SIGCOV of Boytsaniuk in this article for it to count toward GNG, however this alone is not enough.  Willing to reconsider if more SIGCOV is found so please ping me.  Frank   Anchor  16:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - article is written like a resume and seems promotional. The article can be rewritten if there are indeed enough reliable sources to support notability and provide content. - Indefensible (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: 1. The two articles cited are not identical (and there are others as well, e.g.), but JoelleJay's WP:SUSTAINED argument is valid. 2. Here is a piece on the subject's remarks on the occasion of the dental school's 15th anniversary, but it suffers from much the same infirmities as the other articles. 3. On review of the WT:NPROF archives I am not convinced that there has ever been a consensus to exclude deans of professional schools from NPROF#6; rather there seems to be a rough consensus that such positions should be entitled to some weight, but not conclusive weight. 4. Overall, it seems that we have perhaps a near miss on both the GNG and NPROF. Rather than rigid legalism, I think the better practice when dealing with an article that just misses multiple notability criteria is to consider the notability picture as a whole, and on the whole it seems to me that this article has sufficient encyclopedic merit that it should be kept. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, NPROF does not entitle lesser administrative positions any weight towards C6. She does not "just miss" NPROF notability or GNG -- the new article you link is a press release from her university so definitely cannot be used for the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, the consensus over the last 5+ years at AfD has been that being dean of a school does not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think Visviva makes a good point in that, if we have borderline/questionable notability under two guidelines (GNG and PROF in this case), we shouldn't rush to delete. I'd also add that the subject is Ukrainian scientist at a Ukrainian institution who appears to have published almost exclusively in Ukrainian and Russian. Searching for sources in English/with her Romanised name, will obviously result in an extreme under-estimate of how much coverage there is. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, she is very, very far from meeting NPROF. C6 is not a cumulative criterion whereby meeting lesser standards can partially contribute to notability; either the subject holds the president/VC position, or in extremely rare cases a lesser post is considered sufficient due to it being at like Harvard. Dean of dentistry at a minor, low-ranked university is definitely not enough. The fact that she doesn't even come remotely close to passing any other NPROF criteria makes it even clearer that this is not a borderline case. GNG is also not achieved through a handful of interviews containing almost zero independent coverage that were conducted regarding the same event. If we lowered our standards to admit this bio, how many tens of thousands of American deans would now qualify? JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since I have made this Afd nomination, I have done one last attempt to look for new sources. Before a couple of weeks, I add some comments on Akakievich's talk page, regarding the issue of WP:SUSTAINED which is evident with the current sources and what it's mentioned as "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". Her academic profile on Google Scholar shows h-index of 5, generally considered very low for academic standards. Looking for her name with Cyrillic script, as Бойцанюк Світлана Іванівна, I couldn't find anything more than other users found, interviews as dean of dentistry faculty and her war-related project. The only criterion that may establish notability is the NPROF#6, as Visviva and Akakievich said, that "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". Although she is the dean of a faculty, the issue is that her university, Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University, may not possess the criteria to be considered as a major academic institution. The university is not included in any major university rankings (QS, Times Higher Education) and is only 93th among Ukrainian universities in Webometrics, 102th in this ranking. Actually, it's not even among the best 11 Ukrainian universities in Medicine in this ranking. The fact that she is a dean of a faculty may not be enough, since the university is considered as local/regional academic institution and not a major one. Finally, I tried to see notability as a whole, but I couldn't see anything that justify notability as professor/academic or generally as a person. Chiserc (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is based on primary or affiliated sources, she is an ordinary associate professor from an ordinary regional university, she does not have a habilitation (it is necessary in Ukraine to be a professor), she has no noticeable scientific achievements.--Yakudza (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is written in the context of the subject as an academic, but, despite its assertions of number of papers and such, there is little evidence of impact that would satisfy the PROF guides in terms of either leadership or scholarship. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (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.