Maria Cherkasova: All assertions of notability are of "worked for/on X" except for a single event, so falls under WP:BIO1E .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Environment ,  and Russia .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I cannot find sources that substantiate notability.  Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://greencleanguide.com/maria-cherkasova-ecologist-and-journalist/ generic content farm ~ generic biography ✘ No http://www.seu.ru/members/cnep.htm published by the organisation which Cherkasova allegedly co-founded ✘ No https://ecologyofrussia.ru/zhenshchiny-za-prirodu/ generic content farm only one short biography from a list ✘ No http://zmdosie.ru/chitalnyj-zal-zm/rekomenduem/819-posledstviya-raketno-kosmicheskoj ?  passing mention ✘ No https://www.svoboda.org/a/24197748.html the only actually reliable source I could find one short quote from Cherkassova ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  All the best, Akakievich ( talk ) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually disagree about Ecology of Russia, at the bottom of the page they say it is an independent media.  I do not see why it is not reliable.  It is indeed one bio out of the list, but I was able to confirm most of the text of the article using it.  In addition, it talks about awards, and, indeed, I was able to confirm one of the awards by the UN press release (now all added to the article).  I am leaning keep .  Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I was uncharitable in my assessment, I just don't think a content farm that is unlikely to verify anything they print is particularly reliable.  All the same, WP:BASIC requires at least two independent, reliable sources, so this alone does not make Cherkasova notable.  Akakievich ( talk ) 09:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment An academic journal published by the University of Michigan has an entire article talking about her work [30] which goes a long way towards establishing notability.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - she is also one of the people profiled in the 1998 book Women pioneers for the environment , which is now listed in the Further Reading section of the article.  There are 6 pages of details on Cherkasova in that book.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per given the above book as well as [31] [32] which both have sigcov.   Additionally, they've had some success in academic publication themselves: [33] has 91 citations on google scholar, [34] has 1.  Seem to be more, but I'm satisfied.  — siro χ o 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep