Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina Azarova (academic) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Noting that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Valentina Azarova (academic)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * Hi all - I am the subject of this article. It was clearly written by someone who doesn't know my profile or work and who may have merely followed a few of the pieces during the UoT situation, which has now ended. I would be delighted had this person done proper research about me, so that wikipedia users have access to accurate information and I am not misrepresented. But this is not the case. I would be willing to put such a page together myself, but this page needs to be removed. It is, for its omissions and style. quite defamatory and most of all highly inaccurate and irremediable. Valentina azarova (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi all - I am the subject of this article. It was clearly written by someone who doesn't know my profile or work and who may have merely followed a few of the pieces during the UoT situation, which has now ended. I would be delighted had this person done proper research about me, so that wikipedia users have access to accurate information and I am not misrepresented. But this is not the case. I would be willing to put such a page together myself, but this page needs to be removed. It is, for its omissions and style. quite defamatory and most of all highly inaccurate and irremediable. Valentina azarova (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I copied this from Articles for deletion/Valentina Azarova (academic) (diff). Primefac (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I expect others will comment about the deletion, but if you can draw attention to anything inaccurate, I would quickly edit to address that. CT55555 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E - the coverage I have found appears to show 1) Azarova is covered in the context of single event, 2) she otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual and this biography gives undue weight to the event and appears to conflict with a neutral point of view, and 3) it seems unclear based on the limited amount of reporting on the university actions how significant the event is, but clear that her role was not substantial nor well-documented. Even if there is borderline significance of the event, the available sources appear to be so focused on the university and others that the purpose of WP:BLP policy, as well as WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTWHOSWHO, seems best served by deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The proportion of Ms. Azarova's involvement in this newsevent is actually fairly small compared to the participation of the judge and the university administrators and others who have kept it in the news for several years. If there was to be an article, it should focus on the controversy, not on her and without the controversy being given undue weight, we're not left with much for an article.--Jahaza (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has identity of User:Valentina azarova been verified by WP:OTRS or similar?  While I think there is marginal notability here, I don't think it is so much as to override the wish of the subject.  (There are also surely plenty of folks that would be happy to improve this page, although of course that always requires sourcing.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The short answer to your first question is yes. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, after followup to my question by . I !voted weak keep in the first AfD, as I think that the coverage around the UT case is enough for an article.  (I also did not notice the username of the nominator, for which I apologize to her.)  However, at least the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is that a page for a marginally notable person may be deleted on their request.  I don't think that the subject is so notable (at least at this time) that a page is essential for the project, hence my switch. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I also voted to keep before, I considered her notable, but I am persuaded by the arguments above about BLP1E and the desire of the subject. CT55555 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly notable (seems borderline), but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2022 (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.