Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Vita Zaverukha

1489:, you point out that the claim in the article that she had been acquitted was badly sourced. It’s a significant mistake because there is a BIG difference between being acquitted and being released without trial. Being acquitted means that prosecutors felt they had enough evidence to proceed with a formal trial. Being released implies not even that threshold was passed. That’s a serious BLP breach. So I really wouldn’t boast about it. Also, when you insist you knew perfectly well the full contents of the source all along, it means that when you made your false accusations at me regarding the relevance of YouTube videos, implying I had been wiki stalking you and telling me to focus on content, you knew my comments were instead based directly on the source we were discussing and that the accusations you made were false. This is poor form, but other people reading this should be aware that it's not the first time there has been a problem with your behaviour. 968:. Ok so what is this person notable for? They're a neo-Nazi. Ok, unfortunately there are millions of people like that out there in the world. She posted dumb stuff on social media. Uhhh... yeah millions of people like that out there. She fought in one of the make shift militias in Ukraine in 2014 during the first Russian invasion. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians did. She committed an armed robbery. Like, not even murder or something but armed robbery. A crime millions of people have committed. And... that's it. That's the "notability" of this person. Can anyone really say with a straight face that this is a notable article that an encyclopedia should have? If you really think that I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Oh and let's add that she was a teenager during most of this stuff. 1071:- an article about a non public figure with substantial content dedicated their alleged involvment in a crime. A violation of " the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - making an article about a non-public figure (who is unlikely to have continued coverage of them) which may last as the top result on google for them for the rest of their life about neo-nazi and alleged criminal things they did when they were 18 is a violation of that (Yes, she does not look like a great person, but the purpose of wikipedia is not to act as a registry of people who did bad things). A violation of "it is not wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" - I can't see much other encyclopedic purpose to this article. 64:, which discusses the BLP policy as it applies to people accused of crimes), or that nothing this individual has done is actually noteworthy. These arguments are acceptable in principle but weak when applied here. Coverage has been provided here of at least two episodes of this person's life, rendering the BLP1E argument weak. Also, some of this coverage predates any accusations of criminal activity; WP:CRIME applies to people only known for their connection to a crime or alleged crime. Finally, we're not in the business of second-guessing why entirely reliable sources decided to cover a topic; we should not be using Russian propaganda as a source, obviously, but we can't ignore coverage that happens to be convenient to said propaganda. 1424:" (emphasis addded). As the source states, "Why did we mention her now? Because we came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her. And in this video we recognize her herself." I fully admit my original assertion about your argument was based on the assumption you had read the source you were quoting, and I'm happy to apologise for assuming due diligence on your part. Secondly, I really appreciate that you now disagree directly with the assertion by Levivich that her current activities constitute any kind of notability. As the source says, and I invite you to read it, she "has already been forgotten". This matters in terms of whether she is a low profile person and thus how we approach BLP1E. It's good we're making progress. 1471:

source in the wikipedia sense of the word: It omits in plain sight the key information that she was acquitted, not merely released on bail. Even this source, which spends time denigrating her, doesn't see the Elle thing as even worth mentioning as part of who she is. Surely it would be better to have an article on the event itself - the killing of the two Berkut officers - where the arrest and treatment of the group Zaverukha was part of can of course be mentioned as DUE, including any campaigns focused on Zaverukha. That's what various policies point to given the state of sourcing. To be clear, I don't think she's (been) a nice person at all. But let's be here to build an encyclopedia and follow policy.

974:

and amplified. As a result she got a few other mentions here and there. Aside from that, she gets mentions in some regional sources which basically report on local crimes and arguably she may be a local regional "social media celebrity" (or "notoriety") in Vinnitsia or whatever. There's still absolutely nothing here to make her notable. There's like two sentences in one (reliable) book, out of 100+ pages. There's a photocaption in Bellingcat. There's some coverage of the "Elle controversy" in a couple French outlets. Honestly, in almost any other article this would be WP:UNDUE so it sure as hey isn't notable. Best I can think of what could be done with this material is that it would get a brief mention (

2822:. Yes, she is briefly mentioned in a number of news sources, but what she is notable for? She is not notable as a soldier. Yes, she is a former servicewomen of Aidar. That does not make her notable. She is not notable as a criminal (if she is a criminal; she did not kill anyone). She is not notable as a neo-Nazi (if she is a neo-Nazi or a person with "far-right" views, there are many of them). She is not a blogger or an internet personality. Yes, she posted something, but who did not? This all apparently started from Elle France mentioning her as an example of something, apparently an erroneous example, as follows from their apology/retraction. 1678:

the notability of this person. I agree with most of Levivich's analysis, although some but not all of the sources parrot each other almost word for word and therefore should not be considered separate sources. I also agree with most of Gitz's analysis. Those who want to delete seem to be arguing that we should do so because Russian propagandists focus on her. I deeply disagree with that analysis. To be clear, off-Knowledge (XXG), I support Ukraine without hesitation against unjust Russian aggression. But that does not mean that Knowledge (XXG) should portray all Ukrainian militants as saints and all Putin supporters as devils. We have

909:"Vita Zaverukha, a 25-year-old Ukrainian female fighter and open neo-Nazi. Press articles mention the fact that ELLE magazine had interviewed Vita Zaverukha for its 14-20 November 2014 issue, presenting her as a Ukrainian volunteer fighter. However, Internet users reacted by publishing photos of her openly showing her sympathy for neo-Nazi groups on social networks. ELLE magazine has apologised, saying its journalists were not aware of Vita Zaveroukha's views at all. Zaveroukha was arrested in May 2015 in Kiev after an attempted robbery at a petrol station and shooting at police officers, according to the Ukrainian media KP." 2800:. The sources listed by Levivich (and Mhorg) seem more than sufficient. It does not appear that these sources are just routine police-blotter reporting; this was an incident with a significant amount of national attention, and so there was sustained and in-depth coverage on the incident and on Zaverukha's role in it; point #3 in BLP1E would not be met here ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). I mean, more subjectively, I think that's evidenced by the fact that (and I'm trusting the translations from Levivich here) the case was given names like the 2867:) it's reasonable that some readers would find the info in this article interesting. I'm also not convinced by the argument that many other people did similar acts: a) the same can be said for soooo many of the BLPs we have here which consensus has determined are more than acceptable for inclusion; b) sometimes the biography of certain individuals can be more representative and useful than talking in generalities; c) sometimes many 'common' things can, in combination, be uncommon (note arguments above address multiple routes to notability, largely disqualifying 2669:(by the plethora of national media that covered it), as was the trial itself, which included her slashing her wrists in court, an elected lawmaker handcuffing himself to her, and her being beaten in custody allegedly by the authorities, as well as the ultimate acquittal. A bank robbery by alleged terrorists in which two police officers were killed is a huge crime in almost any country, and in some countries would be called the "Crime of the Century". That stuff doesn't happen every day, not to mention everything that happened during the trial. 721:" adds to notability, it's one paragraph in a whole book. I came here to add my reasons why this should be deleted, but I've shifted to a weak keep. First a couple of things, being a neo-nazi or being a Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion are not grounds for notability. So I think this comes down to the controversy over the Elle article, the robbery trial, and whether between them there's enough to prove notability. To this I would have said no, but together with the second (2022) 20 minutes I shifted to a weak keep. -- LCU 52:. The arguments to keep are stronger on the substance and also numerically predominant. They rest on the fairly straightforward assertion that this individual meets GNG via coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of their subject. Evidence has been provided for this argument, which has largely not been directly challenged: those arguing to delete instead focus on the content of this coverage, arguing variously that it should not lead to notability per 2295:(whether the article should exist.) For example, you refer to events in 2022 - that she joined in the defence against the invasion by the Russian Federation. That is not a notable activity otherwise we'd have over a million articles on each Ukrainian citizen actively defending their country. The Elle palaver boils down to a journalist who wrote a bit about her in an article not dedicated primarily to her not knowing she was a neo-Nazi. That's not grounds for notability. 659:: I can't remember any specific examples but I swear there is some precedent for blanking an article over BLP or similar concerns while it's discussed at AFD, like the way we sometimes undelete-and-blank articles while they're at DRV. In this case, given that BLP concerns have been raised, even though I don't personally share those concerns, I think blanking the article (via protecting it as a redirect) while it goes to AFD is a perfectly reasonable precaution to take. 1750:

was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force. A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles. She was released on bail in 2017 and later acquitted. She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.

637:: to clarify, which I should have probably put in opening, the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. 2476:. Someone who didn't do the crime of the century, but whose presence in substantive RS coverage comes from their connection to that crime, is obviously subordinate in notability to that crime itself. And since then, there hasn't been anything she has done that could possibly be described as notable as understood in Knowledge (XXG) policy (again, reminding you of the difference between DUE and NOTABLE). 2929:# The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. 2536:. I'm neutral on whether this article should be kept or not, but it should certainly not have been redirected to an article that doesn't even mention her. Instead of vitriolic discussion on the talkpage and edit warring it should have been brought to AfD straightaway. Why is an article under discussion at AfD currently a redirect so nobody can easily see what they're commenting on? -- 2429:, or such as those listed in Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not." (Emphasis added). This whole thread is about BLP1E. Your assertion elsewhere that she's also notable for being a soldier right now (in a country suffering from an invasion by a major military power and so has quite a few other mobilised people) results from a confusion of the different principles 810:, as I've seen mentioned elsewhere. Simply put two BLP1E events don't make a BLP. However there has been further coverage after those events, which is why I switched to weak keep. I do however agree with others here that the 'current' (the last version that wasn't a redirect) article is a mess, possibly a BLP issue, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. -- LCU 2186:

press, she's significant because, firstly, she was the youngest female fighter in the Aidar bataillion; second, because she had a very visible and controversial social media profile; third, because she was the protagonist of an important trial, which addressed a sensitive issue in post-Maidan Ukraine - the relation between far-right groups and the state

1450:

a benefactor who paid more than one and a half million bail for her... Activists met her from the pre-trial detention center with flowers. Let's remind you, she got married. She settled in Kyiv, so now she is an ex-Vinnytsian. Why did we mention her now? Because they came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her.

2984:(as with all other sections of NBIO) are guidance which is most useful when applied to people whose notability clearly stems from one thing. Vita's (as argued by those supporting deletion above) does not derive from any singular thing, so no SNG is appropriate/relevant here, at least not as an exclusionary factor. 2862:

There's not an awfully highest bar for a biography to be notable. The fact that the against-notability arguments, above, are so numerous and intricate is itself a sign against their soundness. I have read a few of these arguments and I don't find them convincing. I don't think this article is a bunch

2243:

Considering the trial for murder of two police officers during a bank robbery is called by the press the "Zaverukha case" and received national media coverage for three years, it cannot be said that the event was not significant or her role was not substantial or well documented. BLP1E does not apply

1682:

for a very good reason. I am a patriotic American but I know that my country committed what would now be called war crimes starting with the American Revolution and that horrible wartime misbehavior was a major feature of my country's involvement in every war from at least the Mexican-American War to

1449:

At the beginning of the war, in 2014, and then in 2015, Vinnytsia publications wrote endlessly about Vita Zaverukha. First as a "bander girl", then as a "revenge girl", then as a "terrorist girl". She fought, was arrested for a crime, sat in the Kyiv pre-trial detention center, was released thanks to

1381:

First of all, as you are well aware, I've argued that she's notable mainly because of the trial and the public compaign for her release, plus the Elle's affair, and I've never argued that she's notable because of her social media activities, which add something to her public profile and fame, and are

1186:

My mistake, I confused the French outlet and the Ukrainian one. The notice at the bottom of 20minut.ua's website says reader-submitted stories are published in a separate "From the Readers" section; the stories I linked to don't appear to be published in this section, and have bylines that are linked

281:

the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made

2840:

Source checking shows that she was covered mostly as a suspect of a crime, but she has been acquitted of all charges. I think she is just an ordinary (not a notable) person unfairly accused of the crime, which indeed does not warrant a separate page about her per WP:BLP concerns, as has been arguded

2595:

interview was 2014, the arrest was 2015. She also actively sought out media attention during her trial, and after, as documented by the articles about her. As a separate issue, because the victims of the crime were police officers, and I'd argue any murder of a police officer is a murder of a public

2494:

says explicitly that she has been "forgotten" since that case. "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously

2170:

so there isn't a lot of reason to expect coverage of her life before that, when she was a minor. She's been the subject of media coverage each year after that. She's lived literally her entire adult life being covered by national and international media. Also, in response to other votes (not Bob's),

1677:

It is strange to comment on an "article" that is currently a redirect to another article about a military unit that does not even mention Zaverukha, but it is what it is. She is a figure of perhaps borderline notability but I think that the sustained coverage over the years comes down on the side of

1215:

also says for "individuals who are not public figures" - I think she's clearly not a public figure, especially as of right now. Perhaps she was during the trial (I still don't think so, being a public figure is quite a high standard), but not now. Right now she isn't meeting any reasonable criteria

2710:

you're not suggesting otherwise. Second, no, I wouldn't support changing this into an article about the crime, because of what I said in the last sentence of my comment that you are replying to. Although the crime is probably notable enough for a stand-alone article, and having her biography merged

1778:

Then, consider the final sentence: "She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv." Neither of these is grounds for notability, especially not the last bit when there's an

1772:

coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Those articles are not primarily about her. It's poor pickings when we are supposed to be careful with BLP. Essentially, she is supposed to

1734:

violation of BLP policies. I'll mention policy in the main and then make a comment about problems to do with propaganda because it IS in the encyclopedia's interest to know if someone is trying to manufacture notability. But before anything else, contra to some !votes already cast, can we please be

973:

So. How did she get coverage in the media? Well, at one point Elle magazine ran an article on "women fighting in Ukraine" and stupidly they included her. Someone noted she was a neo nazi and some controversy ensued. This was immediately picked up by Russian propaganda who eats this kind of stuff up

840:

Why is Russian propaganda singled out for special treatment in making someone "not notable" despite ample coverage? We allow plenty of articles based on western propaganda (aka newspapers) that the community would otherwise deem not notable except for the abundance of sourcing available. Notability

764:

To clarify as I see it's been mentioned again. For passing GNG I'm looking for three good sources that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. The academic source has the first two, but not the latter. It's a good source for referencing, but I didn't believe it adds to notability

507:

explicitly, in its own voice, states that "Vita Zaverukha stands out ... The teenager became notorious in the Russian press ... In November 2014 the magazine Elle France profiled Zaverukha ... she was arrested in May 2015 ... after she was released on bail in January 2017, Zaverukha and her partner

2622:

one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure..., or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis added). She was

2550:

Because it was an edit war that landed at ANI followed by an AfD request. With the BLP concerns raised by established editors it seemed prudent to not have the article on public view while this was being sorted out. Merited IAR is my belief. As you're the second edit to ask this, moving my note to

2380:

Then perhaps consider deleting this: "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all." As you now concede, that's false. Certain activities result in RS mentions

2272:

No, because the criminal case is just one aspect of her notability. She was notable before being arrested in 2015 and still notable after being acquitted in 2017, as evidenced by sources ranging from 2014 to 2022, including one academic source that says in its own voice that she "stands out" among

2185:

It is interesting, though perhaps not very relevant to this discussion, that Ukrainian sources almost always ignore the incident with Elle. For them, she is not significant for that minor and frankly uninteresting event, which is only significant for Western audiences, if at all. For the Ukrainian

1967:

Regarding Russian propaganda: as others have already stated, we do need to be aware of the movement to make her into a much bigger figure in Ukraine than she actually is. There has been problematic behaviour on the page itself, with likely sock puppet activity and disruptive editing including from

1957:

Both those policies strongly suggest that Zaverukha should NOT be the subject of her own article, especially considering that she was NOT the only one arrested in this one event (three other members of the far right were also) and she was NOT found guilty. Much of the detailed coverage is actually

1749:

Vita Zaverukha...is an Ukrainian nationalist militant and ex-serviceman of the volunteer battalion Aidar. Following Elle France's publication in 2014 of an article on pro-government female fighters in the war in Donbas, she became known for publishing neo-Nazi content on social media. In 2015, she

1362:

I am clearly focussing on content, and staying on topic. You said "On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: 'scandalous woman ... made herself known'." The sentence you partially quoted is, in full, with emphasis added, "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been

1246:

notes that profile can change, and everything I see now indicates that she is low profile, since around 2017 maybe. I don't think appearing in Elle can be used to argue that she isn't low profile since they barely covered her in it, I believe she mainly just appeared in a photo. If it were not for

1470:

Thank you for finally reading the source. That's a great quote you've posted. It shows that she is notable for her connection to a single event and that she then became a low profile person. It also shows that this local news media source, which you and others have heavily used, is not a reliable

2642:

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond

2004:

Because of this lack of notability beyond the incident, there are no biographical elements in the article: no reliable source has reported on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle, and the incidents after the 2017 trial are fragmented non-noteworthy incidents about which there are

1929:

2746:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the

2069:

Thanks Gitz. I missed the vn.20minut piece. It's hard for me to assess the reliability of the local sources (or assess how event-focused rather than person-focused they are), but if it is clear that a complete biographical picture can be assembled from reliable sources then my concerns would be

1036:

about someone who is not a public figure (and is likely not to see ongoing coverage of them in reliable sources) with higly contentious content, so we should be very careful about having and keeping an article about this person. If there is not a clear consensus that this article is support by

1281:: "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." 538:

in the article about Aidar Battalion. It's that old principle that if a source about Subject A mentions Subject B, that suggests that Subject B is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject A, but not that Subject A is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject B. Sources about

2107:

According to its website, "The 20minut.ua website is part of the RIA Media publishing group, which is also part of the RIA © 20minut.ua Media Corporation", which appears to be a wholly Ukrainian endeavour. It has some EU connections and may well be RS, but it doesn't seem to be French.

1446:, let me quote the entire sentence relating to the YouTube video, so that maybe you'll understand where the view that she's notable comes from; and maybe you'll also by able to explain how you could credit me with that nonsense about the YouTube video as the source of her notability: 1080:. What kind of serious encyclopedia has articles about low profile 18 year olds who did neo-nazi stuff and alegedly got involved in crime? Creating articles like that is not at all the point of this project, or reflective of its principles. It also entirely goes against the spirit of 2719:. However, I'd need to see the sourcing for the article about the crime, and the text of the proposed merger, to make up my mind about whether it would be DUE or not. But even though I'm a "keep", I would consider a later merger proposal if someone went and wrote the target article. 2804:

in RFE/RL. Whether the article should be principally focussed on Zaverukha or the criminal case is a reasonable matter for editorial discretion, but given there’s other noteworthy biographical information about Zaverukha here, I do think it makes the most sense kept as a biography.

2687:

If this was something like the crime of the century, would Levivich support a RENAME of the article to turn it into addressing the history crime itself? That would be the most policy-based approach, it would dissolve the BLP issues and we could all get on being here to build an

2775:. Once again, we are not claiming that she committed a crime, or that the US State Department claimed she committed a crime. The very fact that the US State Department writes that she is among the suspects in a political action is in itself noteworthy and deserves inclusion. 1789:

In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force. A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles. She was released on bail in 2017 and later

2743:

that does apply here relates to the post-2017 coverage that focuses on minor crimes where there are vague allegations but no convictions, e.g. the attack on LGBT activists and a woman's march. They might seem noteworthy in an existing article, but BLPCRIME cautions us that

2001:

Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? Is the person notable for any other events in their

1230:

While it is true during the trial she received some coverage of her not directly related to the trial, her notability and the interest in her in that coverage still came from her being a suspect in the trial, and some of it related to allegations of crime, which is still a

1045:

this does not contribute to demonstrating their notability. What coverage of them is substantial is about two different things - appearing in Elle and the scandal from the discovery of her doing a number of neo-nazi things when she was 18, and coverage in relation to a

2584:

A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are

2141:

publication; they are not the same. (The reader-submitted stories are published in a special "from the reader" section, neither of the two I linked to appear to be in that section and both have bylines with a link to an author page; there is also a named editor.)

2953:

I've just discovered that even the claim in the article that Zaverukha was acquitted (ie prosecutors felt there was enough evidence against her to move to a formal trial) is false: the source used says she was released from the investigation, ie without trial.

693:

Ok, that makes sense. Confused, but it make sense now. Article is perhaps controversial, but I still think it's GNG with the sources. I don't think redirect is appropriate either, so we'd have to restore the version that's about 5 down in the article history.

1614:. It's simply obvious that she's notable. Apart from this, what I'd like to stress is that the article was in dare conditions but now is acceptable - perhaps not perfect, some work still needs to be done, but it's not too bad, I think. You can read it here 1216:

for being a public figure. It could be argued for many people who are suspected of crimes that they meet some criteria of being a public figure during and shortly after their arrest and trial - it's not reasonable logic to argue on that basis that

1617:. Given the nature of the subject, which is highly controversial, the article is likely to be the target of disruption and surreptitious attempts at deletion in the near future, so I would be grateful if you could add it to your watchlist. 1759:

The Elle reference is to a mention in an Elle article as one woman among many. A fuss arose was because Zaverukha was a Neo-Nazi and they shouldn't have included her. That doesn't make Zaverukha a notable person. That's material for the

1701:

It's not that she isn't notable because Russian propagandists focus on her, it's that she's notable because Russian propagandists is the only place where the coverage of her originates. Please tell me - what exactly has she done that is

2673:, she's not only notable for the trial, because the GNG coverage of her preceded the trial and continued afterwards. She was notable for being a soldier before, and after, she was notable for being a defendant in a major criminal case. 2347:

I'm afraid your claim that the notability rules do not address notability in various contexts - including notability via involvement in crime - is simply false. How else would various editors here - including YOURSELF where you quote

1386:, could you please tell me where did you get your reference to YouTube? I bet thet you were referring to other discussions I've recently had on YouTube videos, am I wrong? And that would also explain the indefinite pronouns you used, 1991:-biography, because her notability rests entirely on two incidents: the 2014 Elle scandal and the 2015 criminal case and subsequent trial. If she was substantially involved in just one of the events this would be a clear case under 1518:

is about notability not being temporary. But it doesn't change that besides the criminal trial and associated events/coverage and since about 2017 she is low-profile and we should interpret various policies here through that lens

915:: "Police detained four suspects, including Vita Zaverukha and three other activists from the violent radical group Unknown Patriot. As of July 6, only one indictment against one suspect for “hooliganism” had been sent to court." 1187:

to author pages, so I don't think they're reader-submitted (obviously if they were, it wouldn't be an RS). The notice at the bottom also names an "Editor". So I still think it's an RS, but not as clearly as the French outlet.

2092:

I can't speak to all the sources posted here but none of the ones I posted are local coverage; they're all national or international. 20 Minutes is French for example. It's in the Ukrainian language but it's a French outlet.

2770:

says that she was identified by the victims, but doesn't say if they pressed charges or if the attack was punishable under the Criminal Code as assault. "involved in an attack" seems a fair summary. 2) The article says that

2122:

Note also that it has a big button encouraging reader submissions for stories, and the source is a local instance of it: vn.20minut.ua. On the talk page prior to this AFD, concerns about vn.20minut.ua were flatly ignored,

841:

is met by the sustained coverage on various mediums over a number of years concerning numerous events. Also as Lev says, an academic devoting even a paragraph is persuasive when combined with the other sourcing available.

2019:

Hello BobFromBrockley, actually there is at least one source reporting on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle: see this 2014 dedicated article (with interview and photos) on the local press of Vinnytsia

2491: 1413: 1278: 907: 216: 2023:. During and after the trial we have various articles from Ukrainian national press entirely dedicated to her in connection with the trial and the public campaign for her liberation: I wouldn't say that she was 1735:

clear that merely appearing in the media or another RS is NOT the same as notability. The fact that we can confirm she is exists is not enough. Notability has a much higher threshold, particularly with BLP. See

1367:." What I am NOT doing is hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say. I am trying to look at the evidence in the round and how it matches up with policy. I find that a good approach. 1562:- I don't think there is enough reference coverage for Ms. Zaverukha (most references mention Ms. Zaverukha in passing) to be notable in English-language Knowledge (XXG) and the version suggested has serious 717:. First a thank you to Levivich for some source analysis. I saw a lot of other sources being proposed for notability, many of which were just in passing. Although I disagree with Levivich that details from " 1596:. From that remark, one point is maybe worth mentioning: when Zaverukha was in custody a public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles, which focused on Zaverukha alone ( 2623:

acquitted. I don't enjoy defending her on this issue because she's a neo-nazi, but at the same time, being a neo-nazi who didn't commit a murder isn't notable separate from the event she was arrested for.

1827:. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 539:

Zaverukha mention Aidar, which means Aidar is WP:DUE for incusion in the article about Zaverukha, but not that Zaverukha is DUE for inclusion in the article about Aidar. I think this is one where, per

2395:

I did not concede that's false. "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about" does not mean the same thing as "notability rules do not address notability in various contexts". If we want to consider

2454:

does not apply because the 2nd and 3rd requirements aren't met: she is a high profile individual, and even if she wasn't, she still had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event.

2239:

is often mis-cited by editors arguing that if a person is only notable for one event then they are not notable. That's arguing the shortcut instead of arguing the policy. BLP1E's 3rd requirement is

1869:

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the

1968:

IPs. So I advise people look closely at what is actually there in sources, because it is a lot less than the cut and paste lists of RS supposedly establishing notability would lead you to believe.

2773:

a human rights report by the US State Department stated that Vita Zaverukha and other activists of the Unknown Patriot group were among the suspects in an attack on participants of the 8 March

1247:

the criminal trial she would be low profile, and I don't think it's reasonable to say that because she was high profile because of a trial where she wasn't convicted all the considerations of

1013:-article (which is now admitted to being a "myth" (read: lie)). (PS: I think we should keep both articles, as they have figured in media, ( & not because they are significant per se) 508:

were attacked by fellow members of an ultranationalist group to which they belonged. In July 2017 both Zaverukha and her partner allegedly led an attack on transgender activists in Kyiv."

1910:, the guideline regarding notability of people involved in criminal acts. Such a guideline is of course needed because anyone arrested for a serious crime gets into the press. It says: 173: 520:

did another story about her with the headline (Google-translated) "Vinnytsia 'avenger' Vitaminka is fighting in the territorial defense near Kyiv; we found video of Vita Zaverukha"

1142:

users can submit stories, and I cannot find an editorial policy. It shouldn't be used to establish notability, and probably shouldn't be used for claims about living people at all

750:. However, when you have an academic source stating in its own voice that a person "stands out" and is "notorious", that statement, at least in my view, contributes to notability. 1332:

This is a meaningless question posed to a straw man. I've never theorised that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable. I won't reply to this but remind you of our

2768: 2187: 2039: 2171:

I want to point out she wasn't one of many women covered by Elle, she was one of like five, and she was the "cover girl" as it were, meaning the main focus of the coverage.

1318:

Can you explain your theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) entry? Because that is precisely what you are arguing here.

1999:

are involved, giving a stronger initial impression of general notability. However, looking at each case, the answer is a clear no to each of the following BLP questions:

329: 321: 1773:

be notable because a journalist who didn't write much about her didn't know she was a neo Nazi that one time. But being a neo-Nazi in itself isn't a notable achievement.

210: 2885:) doesn't apply least because there is no such existing article AFAIK and indeed some proponents above have argued this info shouldn't be added to an existing article. 2596:

figure. BLPCRIME doesn't apply here because neither the accused nor the victims were low profile, and nobody arguing the policy seems to be addressing that part of it.

1394:, you should either answer my questions and convince me that you were not casting aspersions by deliberately misrepresenting my views, or simply apologise and move on. 1055:

in order to justify having her own article. Besides that, the Elle and neo-nazi stuff, which all constitutes a single scandal/event, also does not pass the criteria in

337: 463: 2038:(very incomplete random selection). Following the trial and her liberation, her vicessitudes continued to be reported by the national press: attack on LGBT activists 333: 325: 309: 931: 673:

Same. I can definitely think of some courtesy blankings although none specifically off the top of my head. I feel like we have more IAR leeway when it comes to BLPs

2042: 457: 398: 317: 313: 2647:

coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role

284:

The article version(s) are visible in the page history for anyone to assess. I remain neutral and uninvolved, this is just an admin nom through a protected page.

1382:

therefore DUE for inclusion in the article, but in themselves are not sufficient to establish the subject's notability. Secondly, since you say that you are not

105: 945: 1894: 1835: 1603: 919: 825: 780: 736: 120: 1606: 465: 449: 2028: 453: 405: 2933: 1934: 1612: 1597: 431: 252: 530:

Putting it all together, I believe subject meets WP:GNG. As for merger or redirection, I do not see a suitable target. It is currently redirected to

305: 1593:. The subject is clearly notable as per Levivich's and Mhorg's source analyses, to which nothing can be added. My own remark on notability are here 938: 460: 390: 2050: 898: 521: 2044: 1658:

with "we don't want to support their position. Notability can be fame or infamy; it does not indicate support for anyone's reprehensible actions.

861:

Because Russian propaganda - the fact that she often features heavily in it - is pretty much the only reason she gets mentioned in other coverave.

475: 2877:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Knowledge (XXG) article

2325:

she is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (the ones I linked to in my !vote above). It doesn't matter

483: 2021: 2005:

fairly vague allegations. It does not appear that she is a significant leader in the far right, just a footsoldier who had 15 minutes of fame.

1442:

from the fact that I quoted a source that - you are right there - mentions a YouTube video by Zaverukha. But then, since you don't like people

2287:

It is a major point of dispute whether her notability goes beyond her association with a criminal event. You should be careful not to confuse

2273:

other women fighters in Ukraine and is "notorious" in Russia. That's not a one event situation, it's multiple events over a period of years.

1076:

I don't think this article serves any genuinely encyclopedic purpose, and I think it goes against the principles of wikipedia, in particular

455: 2034: 1824: 451: 2871:). In any case, it's clear the low bar of GNG is met, and I don't think there's been any compelling enough argument to override GNG here. 534:, which I do not think is a suitable target for merger, because including all the significant details of her biography would probably be 2189:; finally, she is significant because of the campaign for her release, which explains why very minor events, such as the beating by the 1600:

There are five participants in the case of the shooting of the "Eagles", but social networks are raging only about Vinnytsia's Vitynenko

2618:. It states that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal ...should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article 146: 141: 2258:

But if it's the case that the event (the case) is what is notable, then the article should be about the case and not the person, no?

1839: 1420:

when you stated that the source "confirms she is notable" because she "made herself known", the full quote being "made herself known

100: 93: 17: 150: 1764:

page and the reaction they got for it. Likewise, the Georgetown University book on women at war mentions her in passing. To quote

500: 1871: 1211:

applies whether the individual is low profile or high profile, it's just a much greater issue if the individual is low profile.

2989: 2890: 819: 774: 730: 493: 434: 133: 1104:

could also be made, because some amount of the content about this person could also be accomodated in other articles, such as

2784: 2202: 2060: 1626: 1461: 1403: 1353: 1309: 231: 413: 114: 110: 198: 2846: 2827: 1041:

violation, this article should be deleted. The reliable sources that cover this person are largely passing mentions - per

2381:

more than other activities. The notability rules governing different kinds of people have been written to address that.

1858: 900:"Vita Zaverukha, had previously posted images of herself on social media making the Nazi salute and wearing a swastika." 3091: 1227:

applies to perpetrators. She hasn't been convicted of anything as far as I'm aware. She doesn't pass the criteria there

467: 40: 2472:

of involvement in that event, and was not the only person arrested and charged. The thing is, that event is something

504: 491: 409: 177: 2425:. Let me quote from it: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, 924: 473: 2495:

married and has been living for the past few years." Your own source, endorsed by you, says she is now low-profile.

1059:

for having her own article. It could be argued that if you combine those two aspects of her notability, you can get

495: 2985: 2886: 2558: 1084:, these are the kinds of situations this policy was created for. In conclusion, this article should be deleted per 812: 767: 723: 680: 644: 470: 291: 265: 2074:

notability as too trivial, but worth mentioning if we conclude there is notability, although we need to attend to

2754: 2263: 2113: 2083: 2010: 2883:

there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

1683:

the 21st century wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want all of that covered in this encyclopedia, not covered up.

1515: 1297: 192: 2962:

exist precisely because we need to avoid such BLP problems. An article on the event itself avoids these issues.

2842: 2823: 2352:- quote such rules if they didn't exist? You have been editing wikipedia far too long to mess around like this. 1533:

Even if you think she is low profile, the third requirement of BLP1E isn't met, which is why it doesn't apply.

1736: 1101: 1300:. On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: "scandalous woman ... made herself known" 418:

2015-2017 media coverage of her arrest and trial, in the aggregate. For a good example, this 2015 article by

1853:

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

1576: 3074: 2993: 2971: 2894: 2850: 2831: 2814: 2788: 2758: 2728: 2716: 2697: 2682: 2632: 2605: 2564: 2545: 2504: 2485: 2463: 2446: 2434: 2416: 2390: 2375: 2361: 2342: 2310: 2304: 2292: 2282: 2267: 2253: 2241:

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

2227: 2206: 2180: 2151: 2132: 2117: 2102: 2087: 2064: 2036: 2014: 1977: 1714: 1692: 1667: 1654:

To expand: There is clearly coverage of this person in many publications. Some people seem to be confusing

1649: 1630: 1583: 1542: 1528: 1498: 1480: 1465: 1433: 1407: 1376: 1357: 1327: 1313: 1290: 1272: 1243: 1196: 1181: 1151: 1133: 1089: 1022: 998: 956: 873: 850: 830: 801: 785: 759: 741: 703: 686: 668: 650: 621: 603: 582: 552: 540: 349: 297: 188: 75: 2333:, literally doesn't matter at all. Notability is determined by the sourcing, not by what the subject did. 558: 2920: 1920: 982:

in a controversies section or something. Other than that, there's absolutely no notability here. We have

887:

for the reasons listed by Levivich. Other sources that indicate a certain notoriety of the character are:

3087: 2702:

Um, first let me say: everyone in this discussion is here to build an encyclopedia, and this discussion

2553: 2223: 2190: 1109: 675: 656: 639: 286: 260: 70: 36: 2981: 2955: 2944:

creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (emphasis in original)

2940:

unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to

2903: 2872: 2747:

person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

2740: 2615: 2575: 2349: 2075: 1941:

unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to

1907: 1847: 1731: 1256: 1232: 1217: 1212: 1208: 1097: 1068: 386: 372: 61: 238: 3069: 2750: 2541: 2259: 2109: 2079: 2006: 1962:, including frequent sourcing to a local website that appears to solicit user content, vn.20minut.ua. 1705: 989: 864: 2400: 2027:

there, since she was the main/exclusive focus of the event, be it the trial or the public campaign:

1843: 1121: 1688: 1524: 1268: 1163: 1147: 1129: 1009:

notable. (Btw, it is interesting to note the difference in treatment of this article, and say, the

846: 797: 699: 599: 421: 224: 137: 1988: 747: 2780: 2749:

If something can't be included for this reason, it seems like we couldn't hang notability on it.

2724: 2678: 2601: 2459: 2412: 2371: 2338: 2278: 2249: 2198: 2176: 2147: 2098: 2056: 1622: 1569: 1538: 1457: 1412:

Thanks for your reply. Firstly, I am only too happy to explain the reference to YouTube. It's in

1399: 1349: 1305: 1192: 1177: 894: 755: 664: 617: 578: 548: 345: 2959: 2868: 2637: 2611: 2451: 2422: 2404: 2236: 2046:, and occasionally also by international sources (attack on Women's Rights March, US Department 1996: 1992: 1877: 1812: 1727: 1260: 1252: 1236: 1224: 1093: 1085: 1056: 1052: 983: 807: 535: 57: 53: 3041: 3016: 2810: 1854: 89: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3086:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2977: 2864: 2329:

the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber,

1765: 1679: 1341: 1333: 543:, a stand-alone biography article is better than including her biography in another article. 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2967: 2693: 2628: 2500: 2481: 2442: 2386: 2357: 2300: 2219: 2128: 1987:: Having reviewed most of the stronger-looking sources listed, this seems very much to be a 1973: 1494: 1476: 1440:

theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG)

1429: 1372: 1323: 1286: 1018: 204: 66: 2712: 2707: 2579: 2430: 2396: 2318: 2288: 1857:, for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the 1563: 1337: 1248: 1117: 1081: 1077: 1064: 1060: 1042: 1038: 1033: 359: 2537: 1930:

contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

1761: 1663: 1645: 1113: 1105: 979: 952: 531: 2643:

contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

1168: 570: 2366:

I have not claimed that notability rules do not address notability in various contexts?

1684: 1520: 1264: 1157: 1143: 1125: 842: 793: 695: 630: 595: 479: 129: 81: 2314: 1655: 430:, headline (Google-translated) is "The full history of the case of Zaverukha and Co." 3053: 3028: 2776: 2720: 2674: 2597: 2455: 2408: 2367: 2334: 2274: 2245: 2194: 2172: 2143: 2094: 2052: 1618: 1602:), included a member of parliament handcuffing himself to Zaverukha during a hearing 1534: 1453: 1395: 1345: 1301: 1188: 1173: 1010: 751: 660: 634: 613: 574: 544: 487: 341: 2032: 2030: 1744:

The fundamental problem is what she's supposed to be notable for. Look at the lead:

1609: 441: 439: 437: 2806: 2330: 401: 2578:

similarly doesn't apply here because the subject is not a low-profile individual.

2047: 1838:. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with 913: 167: 2763:

But the article is not alledging "minor crimes". It is reporting that 1) she was

2963: 2706:

building an encyclopedia. AFD is part of building an encyclopedia. I'm going to

2689: 2624: 2496: 2477: 2438: 2382: 2353: 2296: 2124: 2049:). Finally we also have a detailed article on her whole life by the local press 1969: 1945:

creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

1490: 1472: 1425: 1392:

everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG)

1368: 1319: 1282: 1014: 942: 594:

per the source discussion above, but there is no article currently on the page.

367: 1659: 1641: 948: 928: 394: 60:(please note the distinction between this piece of a notability guideline and 2767:. Whether that attack qualifies as a crime or not, we don't know. The source 2309:

The word "notable" means, in this context, that an article subject meets the

415:, among others, each of which also contribute to GNG coverage of the subject. 935: 903: 445: 443:("...known as the 'Zaveruha case' and the 'Vinnytsia terrorists case'..."), 1831:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

1825:

Knowledge (XXG) is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information

1608:, protesters blocking the building of the Court of Appeal from the outside 612:

The prior version of the article (before redirect) is in the page history.

1861:, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. 792:

Yes, thank you for the source analysis. I should have stated that above.

381: 1139: 1444:

hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say

1384:

hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say

2137:

Bob's right, I did confuse the Ukrainian 20minute.ua with the French

1063:- I don't think that's the case, I think you're just getting one big 565:

article that includes scans of it, posted by the famous French blog

255:

as I protected the redirect. I am entirely neutral and uninvolved.

2070:

lightened. (I am not convinced that the more recent incidents are

375:. Ironically, the caption misidentifies Zaverukha as "Sveta, 19". 282:

sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want.

275:: to stave off more confusion on why AfD and not RfD, bringing up 2437:(whether a topic is notable and should have their own article). 2218:

Meets GNG per sourcing above and the redirect is inappropriate.

1138:

vn.20minut.ua does not look like a reliable source. You can see

3082:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2474:

you have compared on this very page to a "crime of the century"

2166:

Just to note: she was 18 years old when she was interviewed by

1893:

people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of

1605:, clashes between police and demonstrators near the courtroom 1100:, and going against the entire spirit of BLP. An argument for 1037:

wikipedia policy, and that its existence doesn't constitute a

2923:, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; 2193:

group, in 2017 got national (not local) coverage in Ukraine.

1923:, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; 1834:

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a

1008:, whatever you think of her; she is mentioned in media -: --> 2610:

With regard to who was murdered, the correct policy here is

2291:(what can be included in an article on a notable topic) and 746:

I agree with you that one paragraph in a book does not make

2711:

into a part of that article could potentially be done in a

2492:

your own source that you cited for her continued notability

2433:(justified inclusion in an article on a notable topic) and 2025:

mentioned only in connection with an event or organization

2468:

The event is the killing of two Berkut officers. She was

2313:

guideline. So something is or is not notable if it meets

2863:

of cookie-cutter indiscriminate info, and I think (per

2473: 1615: 1594: 1486: 1417: 1242:

In terms of whether she is low profile or high profile

1067:

violation, on multiple counts. For one, a violation of

276: 248: 163: 159: 155: 223: 1092:

as a violation of BLP, in particular failing to meet

379:

later apologized for running the article. Covered by

3068:

Due to the sources mentioned by Levivich and Mhorg.

2910:

if one of the following applies...For perpetrators,

1611:, and an internet campaign "Je suis Vita Zaveruha" 237: 2906:then lays down when there should be an article. " 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3094:). No further edits should be made to this page. 304:Note: This discussion has been included in the 279:from below on why this is here with a redirect. 2765:involved in an attack on transgender activists 428:20minut.ua (not the same as the French outlet) 2427:such as being notable only for a single event 1447: 8: 2587:The subject actively sought media attention 373:Here is a tweet with the article cover photo 121:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 1438:Ok, fine, so you've inferred that I have a 806:My reason for originally siding delete was 257:(I will fix the redirect after this posts.) 303: 2921:renowned national or international figure 1921:renowned national or international figure 1889:should be applied only to biographies of 1842:. In such cases, it is usually better to 1422:by posting several videos on the Internet 1365:by posting several videos on the Internet 461:Ukrainian Independent Information Agency 3008: 2244:here and I hope the closer takes note. 1850:the person's name to the event article. 2876: 2801: 2772: 2764: 2745: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2641: 2583: 2240: 2024: 2000: 1599: 1443: 1439: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1363:forgotten, but she made herself known 1124:, this is mainly news type content. -- 280: 1390:. Anyway, since I've never said that 1277:Sourcing given to support notability 1223:The criteria under "perpetrators" in 1120:issues. I also think it goes against 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2661:(death of two police officers) were 1799:In other words, for her connections 912:US Department - HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS 2649:. The "Zaverukha case" is, indeed, 2321:is a part. This subject is notable 1088:, and it also also be deleted, per 2671:But even putting all of that aside 2651:a well-documented historical event 2645:The 2022 article is an example of 2551:the nom so folks aren't confused. 2331:having the hiccups for a long time 1881:) when compared with this policy ( 1784:So what we are left with is this: 1051:She does not pass the criteria in 24: 1872:people notable for only one event 2934:living person accused of a crime 2041:, attack on her and her partner 1935:living person accused of a crime 1116:, and probably more, with fewer 308:lists for the following topics: 106:Introduction to deletion process 2919:# The victim of the crime is a 1995:; the ambiguity arises because 435:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 2421:I'm very glad you referred to 271:17:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 1: 3075:09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 2994:10:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 2972:00:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 2895:23:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2851:17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 2832:05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2815:18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2789:18:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2759:16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2729:17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2698:16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2683:16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2633:15:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2606:13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2565:15:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2546:13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2505:06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2486:05:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2464:05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2447:04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2417:20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2391:16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2376:16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2362:16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2343:16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2305:15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2283:13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2268:13:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2254:13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2228:10:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2207:14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2181:13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2152:16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2133:16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2118:16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2103:13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2088:13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2065:12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 2015:10:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1978:06:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1919:The victim of the crime is a 1715:06:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1693:04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1668:15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1650:04:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1631:02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1584:01:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1543:14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1529:10:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1499:00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC) 1481:15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1466:15:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1434:14:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1408:11:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1377:10:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1358:09:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1328:09:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1314:08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1296:But this is not relevant per 1291:06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 1273:21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1197:16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1182:14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1152:06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1134:00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 1023:23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 999:22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 957:22:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 874:22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 851:20:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 831:19:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 802:23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 786:21:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 760:19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 742:19:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 704:23:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 687:22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 669:22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 651:21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 622:19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 604:19:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 583:14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 553:19:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 350:17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC) 298:15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 76:05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC) 2653:in Ukraine, and the alleged 2407:(which is the same as GNG). 1859:Reagan assassination attempt 505:Georgetown University Press 410:Radio France Internationale 96:(AfD)? Read these primers! 3111: 2980:is overriding of GNG, and 2659:the execution of the crime 2657:(domestic terrorism), and 1279:says she's now low profile 471:Television Service of News 561:is a blog post about the 501:This 2019 book, pp. 22-23 3084:Please do not modify it. 2655:motivation for the crime 765:for passing GNG. -- LCU 362:, with sources such as: 32:Please do not modify it. 2399:, she is notable under 1895:low-profile individuals 433:. See also coverage by 2591:she was arrested: the 1950: 1899: 1864: 1836:low-profile individual 1792: 1752: 1452: 178:edits since nomination 2986:ProcrastinatingReader 2887:ProcrastinatingReader 2667:considered noteworthy 1913: 1867: 1840:neutral point of view 1822: 1787: 1779:all-out war going on. 1747: 1730:violation and likely 1336:guidelines including 1110:S14 (Ukrainian group) 813:ActivelyDisinterested 768:ActivelyDisinterested 724:ActivelyDisinterested 94:Articles for deletion 2715:manner in line with 1846:the information and 2843:My very best wishes 2824:My very best wishes 1487:now deleted comment 571:fr:Olivier Berruyer 425:(Ukrainian version) 422:20 minutes (France) 2939: 2490:Here's the thing, 2403:because she meets 1940: 1915:For perpetrators, 1906:And then there is 895:The New York Times 3042:John Hinckley Jr. 3017:John Hinckley Jr. 2937: 1938: 1855:John Hinckley Jr. 1807:event which is a 1801:as one among many 1726:as weakly sourced 1713: 1582: 1485:Oh dear. In this 997: 872: 829: 784: 740: 352: 111:Guide to deletion 101:How to contribute 3102: 3057: 3050: 3044: 3038: 3032: 3025: 3019: 3013: 2563: 2561: 2556: 1712: 1710: 1708:Volunteer Marek 1703: 1581: 1579: 1574: 1567: 1338:focus on content 1263:shouldn't apply 1220:shouldn't apply. 996: 994: 992:Volunteer Marek 987: 871: 869: 867:Volunteer Marek 862: 816: 771: 727: 685: 683: 678: 657:Star Mississippi 649: 647: 642: 365:2014 profile in 306:deletion sorting 296: 294: 289: 270: 268: 263: 242: 241: 227: 171: 153: 91: 74: 34: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3092:deletion review 3071:MrsSnoozyTurtle 3062: 3061: 3060: 3051: 3047: 3039: 3035: 3026: 3022: 3014: 3010: 2802:'Zaveruha case' 2751:BobFromBrockley 2559: 2554: 2552: 2260:BobFromBrockley 2110:BobFromBrockley 2080:BobFromBrockley 2007:BobFromBrockley 1762:Elle (magazine) 1706: 1704: 1577: 1570: 1568: 1516:WP:NOTTEMPORARY 1418:you quoted here 1298:WP:NOTTEMPORARY 1172: 1114:Elle (magazine) 1106:Aidar Battalion 990: 988: 980:Elle (magazine) 865: 863: 719:Insurgent women 681: 676: 674: 645: 640: 638: 557:Not an RS, but 532:Aidar Battalion 519: 516: 497:, among others. 429: 426: 292: 287: 285: 266: 261: 259: 247:Procedural per 184: 144: 128: 125: 88: 85: 65: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3108: 3106: 3097: 3096: 3078: 3077: 3059: 3058: 3045: 3033: 3020: 3007: 3006: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2943: 2930: 2927: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2909: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2835: 2834: 2817: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2739:The aspect of 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2230: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2123:unfortunately. 1981: 1980: 1964: 1963: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1944: 1927: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1892: 1865: 1863: 1862: 1851: 1832: 1817: 1816: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1781: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1741: 1740: 1737:WP:BUTITEXISTS 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1696: 1695: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1640:per Levivich. 1634: 1633: 1587: 1586: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1483: 1240: 1228: 1221: 1206: 1205:Some comments: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1161: 1102:WP:CONTENTFORK 1073: 1072: 1048: 1047: 1026: 1025: 1002: 1001: 970: 969: 962: 961: 960: 959: 940: 933: 926: 921: 916: 910: 901: 889: 888: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 854: 853: 835: 834: 833: 804: 790: 789: 788: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 691: 690: 689: 624: 607: 606: 588: 587: 586: 585: 527: 526: 525: 524: 517: 512: 509: 498: 480:KP (newspaper) 427: 419: 416: 353: 245: 244: 181: 130:Vita Zaverukha 124: 123: 118: 108: 103: 86: 84: 82:Vita Zaverukha 79: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3107: 3095: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3073: 3072: 3067: 3064: 3063: 3055: 3054:Seung-Hui Cho 3049: 3046: 3043: 3037: 3034: 3030: 3029:Seung-Hui Cho 3024: 3021: 3018: 3012: 3009: 3005: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2941: 2935: 2931: 2928: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2907: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2858: 2857: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2818: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2742: 2738: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2717:WP:PAGEDECIDE 2714: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2688:encyclopedia. 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2532: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435:WP:NOTABILITY 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311:WP:Notability 2308: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293:WP:NOTABILITY 2290: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2033: 2031: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2003: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1942: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1898: 1896: 1890: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1866: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1826: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1783: 1782: 1777: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1716: 1711: 1709: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1580: 1575: 1573: 1572:GizzyCatBella 1565: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1514: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342:stay on topic 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1244:WP:LOWPROFILE 1241: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090:WP:DEL-REASON 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011:Ghost of Kyiv 1007: 1004: 1003: 1000: 995: 993: 986:for a reason. 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 967: 964: 963: 958: 954: 950: 946: 944: 941: 939: 937: 934: 932: 930: 927: 925: 922: 920: 917: 914: 911: 908: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 892: 891: 890: 886: 883: 882: 875: 870: 868: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 852: 848: 844: 839: 836: 832: 827: 823: 821: 820:transmissions 815: 814: 809: 805: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 782: 778: 776: 775:transmissions 770: 769: 763: 762: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 744: 743: 738: 734: 732: 731:transmissions 726: 725: 720: 716: 713: 712: 705: 701: 697: 692: 688: 684: 679: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 653: 652: 648: 643: 636: 632: 628: 625: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 608: 605: 601: 597: 593: 590: 589: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 541:WP:PAGEDECIDE 537: 533: 529: 528: 522: 515: 510: 506: 503:published by 502: 499: 496: 494: 492: 490: 489: 488:Korrespondent 484: 482: 481: 476: 474: 472: 468: 466: 464: 462: 458: 456: 454: 452: 450: 448: 447: 442: 440: 438: 436: 432: 424: 423: 417: 414: 412: 411: 406: 404: 403: 399: 397: 396: 391: 388: 384: 383: 378: 374: 370: 369: 364: 363: 361: 357: 354: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 302: 301: 300: 299: 295: 290: 283: 278: 274: 269: 264: 258: 254: 250: 240: 236: 233: 230: 226: 222: 218: 215: 212: 209: 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 190: 187: 186:Find sources: 182: 179: 175: 169: 165: 161: 157: 152: 148: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 126: 122: 119: 116: 112: 109: 107: 104: 102: 99: 98: 97: 95: 90: 83: 80: 78: 77: 72: 68: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3083: 3081: 3070: 3065: 3048: 3036: 3023: 3011: 3003: 2936:is presumed 2924: 2899: 2879: 2878: 2859: 2819: 2797: 2703: 2670: 2619: 2592: 2588: 2571: 2533: 2469: 2426: 2326: 2322: 2232: 2215: 2167: 2138: 2071: 1984: 1959: 1937:is presumed 1924: 1914: 1886: 1882: 1876: 1870: 1868: 1823: 1811:. What does 1808: 1804: 1800: 1788: 1769: 1748: 1723: 1707: 1674: 1637: 1590: 1571: 1559: 1448: 1421: 1364: 1162: 1096:, violating 1029: 1005: 991: 975: 965: 884: 866: 837: 817: 811: 772: 766: 728: 722: 718: 714: 627:Process note 626: 591: 566: 562: 513: 486: 478: 444: 420: 408: 402:Ouest-France 400: 393: 380: 376: 366: 355: 272: 256: 249:this request 246: 234: 228: 220: 213: 207: 201: 195: 185: 87: 49: 47: 31: 28: 2982:WP:CRIMINAL 2976:Nothing in 2956:WP:CRIMINAL 2932:#* Note: A 2904:WP:CRIMINAL 2873:WP:CRIMINAL 2841:by others. 2741:WP:BLPCRIME 2616:WP:BLPCRIME 2576:WP:BLPCRIME 2560:Mississippi 2350:WP:BLPCRIME 2317:, of which 2220:Selfstudier 2078:concerns.) 2076:WP:BLPCRIME 2072:evidence of 1985:Weak delete 1908:WP:CRIMINAL 1875:guideline ( 1770:significant 1732:WP:CRIMINAL 1257:WP:BLPCRIME 1233:WP:BLPCRIME 1218:WP:BLPCRIME 1213:WP:BLPCRIME 1209:WP:BLPCRIME 1098:WP:BLPCRIME 1069:WP:BLPCRIME 943:Obozrevatel 682:Mississippi 646:Mississippi 387:WP:HUFFPOST 377:Elle France 368:Elle France 293:Mississippi 267:Mississippi 253:this thread 211:free images 62:WP:BLPCRIME 3004:References 2938:not guilty 2538:Necrothesp 2401:WP:NPERSON 2139:20 Minutes 1997:two events 1939:not guilty 1790:acquitted. 1702:"notable"? 1566:issues. - 1414:the source 1164:20 minutes 1122:WP:NOTNEWS 1032:This is a 929:Espreso TV 567:Les Crises 518:20minut.ua 514:20 Minutes 277:my comment 3088:talk page 3052:Example: 3040:Example: 3027:Example: 3015:Example: 2470:acquitted 2191:C14 group 1989:WP:PSEUDO 1685:Cullen328 1521:Tristario 1388:everybody 1265:Tristario 1158:Tristario 1144:Tristario 1126:Tristario 936:Gazeta.ua 918:Zaborona: 904:France 24 843:Slywriter 794:Oaktree b 748:WP:SIGCOV 715:Weak keep 696:Oaktree b 631:Oaktree b 596:Oaktree b 511:In 2022, 446:Hromadske 395:L'Express 67:Vanamonde 37:talk page 3090:or in a 2960:WP:BLP1E 2869:WP:BLP1E 2785:contribs 2721:Levivich 2675:Levivich 2638:WP:CRIME 2612:WP:CRIME 2598:Levivich 2585:notable. 2456:Levivich 2452:WP:BLP1E 2423:WP:BASIC 2409:Levivich 2405:WP:BASIC 2368:Levivich 2335:Levivich 2275:Levivich 2246:Levivich 2237:WP:BLP1E 2203:contribs 2173:Levivich 2144:Levivich 2095:Levivich 2061:contribs 1993:WP:BLP1E 1933:Note: A 1887:WP:BLP1E 1883:WP:BLP1E 1878:WP:BIO1E 1848:redirect 1813:WP:BLP1E 1728:WP:BLP1E 1627:contribs 1535:Levivich 1462:contribs 1404:contribs 1354:contribs 1310:contribs 1261:WP:CRIME 1253:WP:BLP1E 1237:WP:CRIME 1225:WP:CRIME 1189:Levivich 1174:Levivich 1094:WP:BLP1E 1086:WP:CRIME 1057:WP:BLP1E 1053:WP:CRIME 984:WP:BLP1E 808:WP:BLP1E 752:Levivich 661:Levivich 635:Levivich 614:Levivich 575:Levivich 545:Levivich 536:WP:UNDUE 382:HuffPost 342:Levivich 330:Politics 322:Military 174:View log 115:glossary 58:WP:CRIME 54:WP:BLP1E 39:or in a 2978:WP:NBIO 2900:Comment 2865:WP:10YT 2807:Endwise 2663:unusual 2620:only if 2572:Comment 2534:Comment 2397:WP:SNGs 2323:because 2233:Comment 1766:WP:NBIO 1680:WP:NPOV 1334:WP:TALK 826:co-ords 781:co-ords 737:co-ords 338:Ukraine 336:, and 217:WP refs 205:scholar 147:protect 142:history 92:New to 2964:OsFish 2820:Delete 2713:WP:DUE 2708:WP:AGF 2690:OsFish 2625:OsFish 2614:, not 2589:before 2580:WP:LPI 2497:OsFish 2478:OsFish 2439:OsFish 2431:WP:DUE 2383:OsFish 2354:OsFish 2319:WP:GNG 2297:OsFish 2289:WP:DUE 2125:OsFish 1970:OsFish 1891:living 1805:single 1724:Delete 1564:WP:BLP 1560:Delete 1491:OsFish 1473:OsFish 1426:OsFish 1369:OsFish 1320:OsFish 1283:OsFish 1249:WP:BLP 1167:is an 1118:WP:BLP 1082:WP:BLP 1078:WP:5P1 1065:WP:BLP 1061:WP:GNG 1046:crime. 1043:WP:GNG 1039:WP:BLP 1034:WP:BLP 1030:Delete 1015:Huldra 976:merge? 966:Delete 485:, and 407:, and 360:WP:GNG 358:meets 334:Russia 326:Police 310:People 189:Google 151:delete 2582:sats 2002:life? 1960:local 1844:merge 1809:crime 1803:to a 1660:Buffs 1642:Buffs 1416:that 1239:issue 1169:WP:RS 978:) in 949:Mhorg 385:(see 318:Crime 314:Women 232:JSTOR 193:books 168:views 160:watch 156:links 16:< 3066:Keep 2990:talk 2968:talk 2958:and 2908:only 2891:talk 2860:Keep 2847:talk 2828:talk 2811:talk 2798:Keep 2781:talk 2777:Gitz 2755:talk 2725:talk 2694:talk 2679:talk 2665:and 2629:talk 2602:talk 2593:Elle 2555:Star 2542:talk 2501:talk 2482:talk 2460:talk 2443:talk 2413:talk 2387:talk 2372:talk 2358:talk 2339:talk 2327:what 2315:WP:N 2301:talk 2279:talk 2264:talk 2250:talk 2224:talk 2216:Keep 2199:talk 2195:Gitz 2177:talk 2168:Elle 2148:talk 2129:talk 2114:talk 2099:talk 2084:talk 2057:talk 2053:Gitz 2011:talk 1974:talk 1815:say? 1689:talk 1675:Keep 1664:talk 1656:WP:N 1646:talk 1638:Keep 1623:talk 1619:Gitz 1591:Keep 1539:talk 1525:talk 1495:talk 1477:talk 1458:talk 1454:Gitz 1430:talk 1400:talk 1396:Gitz 1373:talk 1350:talk 1346:Gitz 1340:and 1324:talk 1306:talk 1302:Gitz 1287:talk 1269:talk 1259:and 1235:and 1193:talk 1178:talk 1148:talk 1140:here 1130:talk 1019:talk 1006:Keep 953:talk 885:Keep 847:talk 838:Keep 798:talk 756:talk 700:talk 677:Star 665:talk 641:Star 618:talk 600:talk 592:Keep 579:talk 563:Elle 559:here 549:talk 356:Keep 346:talk 288:Star 262:Star 251:and 225:FENS 199:news 164:logs 138:talk 134:edit 71:Talk 50:keep 2942:not 2783:) ( 2201:) ( 2059:) ( 1943:not 1885:): 1768:, " 1625:) ( 1460:) ( 1402:) ( 1352:) ( 1308:) ( 569:by 273:ETA 239:TWL 172:– ( 56:or 2992:) 2970:) 2925:or 2902:: 2893:) 2880:if 2849:) 2830:) 2813:) 2787:) 2757:) 2727:) 2704:is 2696:) 2681:) 2640:: 2631:) 2604:) 2574:- 2544:) 2503:) 2484:) 2462:) 2445:) 2415:) 2389:) 2374:) 2360:) 2341:) 2303:) 2281:) 2266:) 2252:) 2235:- 2226:) 2205:) 2179:) 2150:) 2131:) 2116:) 2101:) 2086:) 2063:) 2013:) 1976:) 1925:or 1691:) 1666:) 1648:) 1629:) 1578:🍁 1541:) 1527:) 1497:) 1479:) 1464:) 1432:) 1406:) 1375:) 1356:) 1344:. 1326:) 1312:) 1293:. 1289:) 1271:) 1255:, 1251:, 1195:) 1180:) 1160:: 1150:) 1132:) 1112:, 1108:, 1021:) 955:) 947:-- 923:LB 849:) 800:) 758:) 702:) 667:) 620:) 602:) 581:) 573:. 551:) 477:, 469:, 459:, 392:, 389:) 371:. 348:) 340:. 332:, 328:, 324:, 320:, 316:, 312:, 219:) 176:| 166:| 162:| 158:| 154:| 149:| 145:| 140:| 136:| 3056:. 3031:. 2988:( 2966:( 2889:( 2875:( 2845:( 2826:( 2809:( 2779:( 2753:( 2723:( 2692:( 2677:( 2627:( 2600:( 2540:( 2499:( 2480:( 2458:( 2441:( 2411:( 2385:( 2370:( 2356:( 2337:( 2299:( 2277:( 2262:( 2248:( 2222:( 2197:( 2175:( 2146:( 2127:( 2112:( 2097:( 2082:( 2055:( 2009:( 1972:( 1897:. 1739:. 1687:( 1662:( 1644:( 1621:( 1537:( 1523:( 1493:( 1475:( 1456:( 1428:( 1398:( 1371:( 1348:( 1322:( 1304:( 1285:( 1267:( 1191:( 1176:( 1171:. 1156:@ 1146:( 1128:( 1017:( 951:( 906:: 897:: 845:( 828:° 824:° 822:∆ 818:∆ 796:( 783:° 779:° 777:∆ 773:∆ 754:( 739:° 735:° 733:∆ 729:∆ 698:( 663:( 655:@ 633:@ 629:@ 616:( 598:( 577:( 547:( 523:. 344:( 243:) 235:· 229:· 221:· 214:· 208:· 202:· 196:· 191:( 183:( 180:) 170:) 132:( 117:) 113:( 73:) 69:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Vita Zaverukha - Knowledge (XXG)

Index