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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katina T. Stefanova[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources not reliable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Assyrtiko (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Assyrtiko (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finance, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wondering why "User:Assyrtiko" is bent on getting this page removed. He first tagged it for CSD WP:A7, this was declined by BangJan1999 with valid reasons. He came back again with the same CSD WP:A7, this was declined by an admin, Liz with clear reasons. Now, he comes with an AFD with flimsy reason. This is quite disheartening!

Looking at the sources cited, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. A further search on Googlenews reveals this air of notability here.

Furthermore,Stefanova was appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, to serve as a member of the Investment Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.^[1]. This is also connotes an air of credibility and notability.Sanis Banganan (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Report of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board" (PDF). un.org.other.afics. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

Comment Assyrtiko at first glance, there seems to be some significant coverage of this person. I need to dig down into the sources a little before making up my mind but can you explain why you feel the sources aren't reliable? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases or other routine announcements used as sources, most of them are non-reliable. Almost run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The sources here are by and large unreliable and/or not independent: to take a representative sample, [1] is labeled "partner content", [2] is an interview published by a questionable source, and [3] lacks a byline and is an uncritical résumé-like piece. ([4] is a decent, if unflattering, source, but it's not enough on its own.) This article has already been salted at Katina Stefanova (with the apt comment "UPE target"), so I'd ask the closer to consider doing the same for this title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2022 (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.