Appsoft4

Nomination of OpenOrienteering Mapper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenOrienteering Mapper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenOrienteering Mapper until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Music1201 ^talk 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at XTrackCAD. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally do not close AfD's without reason and especially if you are the creator of the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Acually the closing was mine because it was erroneously categorized as a template so I thought it was a discussion for TfD. Sorry ^{[Username Needed]} 10:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Username Needed it was also them. See here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

{{NoACEMM}}

Your GA nomination of MicroEmulator

The article MicroEmulator you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:MicroEmulator for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ForksForks -- ForksForks (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Atari Calculator

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Atari Calculator you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jlwoodwa -- Jlwoodwa (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Atari Calculator

The article Atari Calculator you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Atari Calculator for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jlwoodwa -- Jlwoodwa (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Appsoft4. Thank you for your work on Yakiv Pavlenko. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

With an h-factor of 28 and 2574 citations in Google Scholar notability is dubious as he had no major awards (or none mentioned here). The claim of more than 300 papers looks odd.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim of more than 300 papers looks odd.

I only cited obituary. If you know how to improve the article, plese do it.

About awards: awords listed in the article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakiv_Pavlenko#Awards).

About notability: h-factor is one of many factors to claim notability. I think his work on analyzing spectrums from HARPS data, which then used for Proxima Centauri c discovery is notable themselves. Also, there are not so many astrophysics in Ukraine at all, so from Ukrainian point of view he was and is a notable Ukrainian. Appsoft4 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Yakiv Pavlenko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yakiv Pavlenko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakiv Pavlenko until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yakiv Pavlenko. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Do not remove AfD notices, this is very inappropriate and can have serious consequences. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I give proofs for all facts: link to ORCID with the list of more than 300 papers, links to state awards articles where are references to the state laws defining given awards as major national level awards.

Stop mod edits basing on your personal opinion what is notable and what is not. Appsoft4 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakiv Pavlenko, you may be blocked from editing. OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I see vandalism only from mod team (3 accounts, including You).

I gives all the required references in earlier talks and listed all references confirming the facts in the article.

Adding "Deletion" request I qualify aas an organized attack by Mod Team on the article with multiply sources confirming notability and each fact in the article. Appsoft4 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not an attack. An editor has nominated the article for deletion. Please express your views in a civil and constructive manner at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakiv Pavlenko or you will end up blocked and unable to contribute. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read the AFD process - it's a discussion, . The tag has been added and unless Ldm1954 withdraws it, other editors will be asked to comment if they think the article it notable and can be improved, or if it should be deleted.

You've now been blocked from editing the discussion now anyway. If you politely add your views here, I'll be happy to link them in the AFD. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is my views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Appsoft4#c-Appsoft4-20241029221200-Articles_for_deletion Appsoft4 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have noted this on the AFD page for you.

Nobody here (besides that IP editor) is attacking you, your work, or the article. It's just a process to manage content.

It might be best to remove that other unblock request, take a break and come back later with a fresh perspective. If you spam unblock requests you'll just get your talk access taken away too, which will only frustrate you more. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the last reverts you missed a reference to the confirmation source at ORCID.

Add this reference back to the article, because it is the proof of my words (diff is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&diff=prev&oldid=1254203155). Appsoft4 (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Please stop blanking the AFD discussion. You are welcome to add your views why the article should be kept, but you need to let the process play out. You're going to end up with a block otherwise. OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop removing the deletion tag from the article. You're not helping your case. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What appalling behaviour. Not only ignoring repeated requests to stop removing the deletion discussion tag from the article but engaging in abuse towards other editors simply reverting your unacceptable behaviour. I see above that you have form in this conduct regarding AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakiv Pavlenko for a period of 1 week for edit warring to blank WP:AFD templates. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Appsoft4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is a result of an organized attack by Mod Team on the article with the full list of confirmation sources in the "References" list. In all the previous talks (on my page and on article's talk page) I gave the links and facts confirmed notability of the article. But mods ignored all the given facts and sources and requested article for deletion for no reason. The list of mods took part in this organized attack: # User:Ldm1954 # User:AusLondonder # User:OXYLYPSE I request to unblock my account and to testify all the mods took part in this organized attack. I qualifing this attack as an personal attack from the mods on the subject of the latest created article.Appsoft4 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is a direct result of your inappropriate actions. You were warned to stop removing the AfD tags and kept on doing it. The block prevents you from doing so. Hopefully you take the time of this block to understand what you were doing wrong so you don't end up blocked again in the future. Yamla (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Appsoft4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is a result of an organized attack by Mod Team on the article with the full list of confirmation sources in the "References" list. In all the previous talks (on my page and on article's talk page) I gave the links and facts confirmed notability of the article. But mods ignored all the given facts and sources and requested article for deletion for no reason.

The list of mods took part in this organized attack:

1. User:Ldm1954
2. User:AusLondonder
3. User:OXYLYPSE

I request to unblock my account and to testify all the mods took part in this organized attack.

I'm qualifing this attack as an personal attack from the mods on the subject of the latest created article. Appsoft4 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See my response below. asilvering (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you absolutely sure you want to make essentially the same unblock request again, after I declined it? Are you absolutely sure? The most likely outcome of you doing so is for your block to be extended indefinitely and site-wide. I very strongly suggest you take down your current open unblock request while leaving the declined one intact; you are not permitted to modify or remove declined unblock requests for currently active blocks.

I have extended the block site-wide and set it to two weeks, as the previous block was not sufficient to stop you violating WP:3RR. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I see there is an ongoing attack not only on the latest article, but even on this my talk page. Appsoft4 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeap. It's a well-known tiresome troll and has nothing to do with you. The attacks on this talk page aren't even targeted at you and I assure you, have nothing to do with your content dispute. I've protected this page so you aren't bothered by them. I am truly sorry you were caught up in that trolling. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this page from not registered users attack.

I keep my view that deletion request of the latest article was made as an attack too.

The list of registered users (mods or not mods, IDK) attacked the article attached above.

Reqeusted deletion of the latest created article, after all the requested confirmation sources was given by me on the article's talk page, is nothing else than vandalism by mods and an attack on the subject of the article. Appsoft4 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edits continue to be disruptive. Your talk page is a place for editors to communicate with you, and which you retain access to in order to appeal your block. It is not a webhost where you can cut and paste entire articles.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote an article with all the sources according to the article style guide.

All the 'disruptive edits' is a result of the attack on the article from 3 listed users/mods above.

There is no any reason why the article is nominated for deletion, because all the references and confirmation sources are already in the article and I responded to all the sources requests and provided the verifiable proofs on the article talks page before removed Notability template with the adding references to the article (you may check it itself). Deletion request was added to the page by User:Ldm1954 ignoring all the proofs I porvided before.

Adding unrelated templates — this was real disruptive edits by User:Ldm1954, and I see all the further actions as an attack on the article (IDK is targeted or emotional, but in any case there was nothing logical on requesting deleting new article marked by me as a "stub" with an envovling list of notability confirmation sources added till the last my edit before block). Appsoft4 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Appsoft4, those three editors you're calling "mods" aren't mods - we don't really have moderators on Wikipedia. They're other editors, just like you. It's not acceptable to edit war at all, but it's especially not acceptable to edit war to try to prevent a deletion discussion on an article you've written. The article will now be discussed for at least a week, and uninvolved editors will decide whether the subject is notable under the guidelines at WP:NPROF. If all the references and sources are already in the article, then there is nothing else you need to do except let the discussion play out.

I assure you that the article has not been nominated for deletion as a personal attack. The editor who nominated it is a new page patroller, and they will have come across the article you wrote while patrolling. I understand that it is frustrating to have an article you wrote nominated for deletion, but your unblock request indicates to me that you will resume the same disruption immediately upon being unblocked, so I think it's better to leave the block up while the article is at AfD and will be declining this unblock request. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

those three editors you're calling "mods" aren't mods - we don't really have moderators on Wikipedia.

The editor who nominated it is a new page patroller,

Under moderators I mean "users with privileged permissions", even calling their job "patroling" dose not changes the meaning of what they may do on the site.

According to Internet forum#Moderators and Internet forum#Administrators, WP:Administrators has permissions of both, moderators and administrators.

Avoiding use the term WP:Moderators on Wikipedia, does not changes the role previleged users act on Wikipedia.

They're other editors, just like you.

If so, all 3 listed editors also did WP:3RR (according to "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."), and should be blocked as well.

You may ensure that the listed 3 users also did 3 reverts too on both pages:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&action=history

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yakiv_Pavlenko&action=history

Also, You may ensure that I replied to all the reqeusts by User:Ldm1954 on the article talk page and provided all the proofs and references to validate Notability:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yakiv_Pavlenko

(I removed Template:Notability template, predicting it with adding more references, because adding such template was a disruptive edit for the article containing all the refernces for each fact prooving notability).

Adding Template:AfD I claim an act of vandalism and attack on the article by the mod team because its done by previleged users ("new page patroller").

indicates to me you will resume the same disruption immediately upon being unblocked

Sorry, but this your comment is your personal opinion and is a defamation (according to WP:Libel), and, as you are one of WP:Administrator's, with the moderation permission (I explaned above why), its totally prohibited to use personal opinion as the reason for keep blocking users at least from ongoing AfD discussion (WP:Articles_for_deletion/Yakiv_Pavlenko#c-Espresso_Addict-20241030024400-Ldm1954-20241029212900). Appsoft4 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not defamation. If you would like to participate in the AfD discussion, you are first going to have to convince an administrator that you will do so usefully, and not disrupt the process. -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to participate in the AfD discussion, you are first going to...

Lets' not make wild guesses here. Appsoft4 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FTR, User:Ldm1954 lied on the AfD talk page to reason AfD nomination:

I tagged the page with notability questionable, and asked for verification of claims. Appsoft4 ignored request, so now it needs a wider discussion of notability (or not). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakiv_Pavlenko#c-Ldm1954-20241029212900-Yakiv Pavlenko

I replied on the requests and provided sources to all the proofs of notability (see: Talk:Yakiv Pavlenko). Appsoft4 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• You're claiming that I'm one of several editors participating in some kind of "organised attack" against you and the page, yet I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether the article should even be deleted. I don't have an opinion at this stage on the notability or otherwise of the subject. I simply reverted your unacceptable behaviour in removing the AfD tag from the article and disruption of the AfD discussion. It's really that simple. There's not some grand conspiracy here. AusLondonder (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  To note, AfD template was added by User:Ldm1954 without mentioning the reason of nomination in the template and edit description.

  I see no any reason AfD template was added in the first place, as Notability template, added User:Ldm1954 was disruptive edit, because all the sources shows notability of the person described in the article.

  Also, AfD template was by User:Ldm1954 immediatly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&oldid=1254199307) after I gave all the requsted proofs (you may check talks pages and diffs) and removed questioned Notability template (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&oldid=1254197442).

  Then you and User:OXYLYPSE few times reverted my reverts without any edit description notes.

  That is why I qualify this action as an attack on the article by previleged users (aka 'mods', even 'mod' term is not used here; I described why 'mod' term is applicable in previous reply: User_talk:Appsoft4#c-Appsoft4-20241030083400-Asilvering-20241030035800). Appsoft4 (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ldm1954 tagging your article for deletion was not disruptive or malicious, it is part of Wikipedia's processes. What is disruptive is the repeated removal of the proposed deletion notice, the AFD discussion page, and the questioned notability template, especially as it's from an article that you created. You do not WP:OWN the article.

  I have repeatedly tried to help you and explain to you how the process works, but you refuse to listen. Based on your previous talk page comments, you did the exact same thing in 2018 when XTrackCAD was tagged for deletion.

  For clarity, yes, I probably did violate WP:3RR in restoring the AFD discussion page & associated tag, but I did so under the exemption of "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking."

  -OXYLYPSE (talk) OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ldm1954 tagging your article for deletion was not disruptive or malicious, it is part of Wikipedia's processes.

  Nominating AfD after all the talks full of sources prooving notability was not a normal Wikipedia's process, instead it was an act of vandalism by User:Ldm1954.

  Based on your previous talk page comments, you did the exact same thing in 2018 when XTrackCAD was tagged for deletion.

  I would say more, that both previously deleted articles, XTrackCAD and User_talk:Appsoft4#Nomination_of_OpenOrienteering_Mapper_for_deletion, was nominated to AfD in the same manner as User:Ldm1954 did it now — articles had all the sources/references to fit Wikipedia article's style guide and notability, but previleged editors and admins removed articles ignoring all the proofs. Appsoft4 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is clearly pointless. I'm unfollowing your Talk now. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Before you go, @OXYLYPSE, place ORCID reference back to the article (you removed it with the last revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&diff=prev&oldid=1254210293). Appsoft4 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Once more: place the proof reference, removed by your revert, back to the article (diff is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiv_Pavlenko&diff=prev&oldid=1254203155). Appsoft4 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Would it kill you to use some manners? OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I asked You to revert removed reference twice, because you ignored my first request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Appsoft4#c-Appsoft4-20241030000700-OXYLYPSE-20241029234200).

  Thank you for reverting your disruptive revert edit on my second requst. Appsoft4 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hello Appsoft4 -- I'm willing to place a polite paragraph from you as a comment at the deletion discussion so that you can make your opinion known there. This must focus only on why you consider Yakiv Pavlenko to be sufficiently notable for an article. (Other editors' behaviour is not relevant.) You should focus on why precisely Pavlenko meets one or more of the bullet points in WP:PROF and/or what reliable independent sources there are, such as obituaries, prize citations, reviews of his work or similar. Useful information would include are any of the society memberships listed elected fellowships (per WP:PROF#3). Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  ... why precisely Pavlenko meets one or more of the bullet points in WP:PROF and/or what reliable independent sources there are, such as obituaries, prize citations, reviews of his work or similar...

  Here is a list (maybe even incomplete):

  • Yakiv Pavlenko was given by one of two highest awards at the national level for the field of astronomy by The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU):
    • NASU Prize named after Mykola Barabashov (given to Yakiv Pavlenko and in 2009, presented in 2010): https://old.nas.gov.ua/EN/Competition/Pages/About.aspx?CompetitionID=033
      • Source: https://old.nas.gov.ua/UA/Competition/Pages/Persons.aspx?CompetitionID=033&Year=2010
    • (Seconf one is NASU Prize named after Yevhen Fedorov, but Yakiv Pavlenko never nominated for it.)
  • Yakiv Pavlenko was given by the highest award at the national level for the field of science and technology by The Government of Ukraine:
    • State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (given to Yakiv Pavlenko in 2014); since 2021, award was renamed to National Prize of Ukraine named after Borys Paton:
      • Source: https://www.kdpu-nt.gov.ua/en/content/derzhavni-premiyi-ukrayini-v-galuzi-nauki-i-tehniki-2014-roku-oglyad-0
  • Obituary was published by the Yaroslav Yatskiv, a notable Ukrainian astronomer, a directory of MAO NASU (Yakiv Pavlenko was a Chief Research Fellow and headed one of its departments), an elected member of the Presidium of NASU and the Chief of the Ukrainian Astronomical Association (Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of NASU and UAA too).
    • Source: https://mao.kiev.ua/index.php/ua/81-in-memoriam/866-in-memoriam-pavlenko
    • Curriculum Vitae: https://mao.kiev.ua/staff/yp/TXT/yp0031.txt
    • LinkedIn: https://ua.linkedin.com/in/yakiv-pavlenko-6244a3b
  • Research work includes more than 300 publications according to ORCID (on Google Scholar, used to reason adding Notability and AfD, ingoring WP:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics caution on Google Scholar, only 141 are listed, and on ResearcheGate only 272 are listed) — this may be not a direct notability proof, but it describes that adding Notability and AfD templates was not legit in the first place.
    • Source: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-4028
    • Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EmsP1AgAAAAJ
    • ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yakiv-Pavlenko#publications
  • Article about Yakiv Pavlenko is published in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine.
    • Source: https://esu.com.ua/article-878326
  • Yakiv Pavlenko's discovery of 5 new exocomets was published by valuable scientific news media.
    • Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ukrainian-astronomers-discover-exocomets-around-another-star/
  • Yakiv Pavlenko co-autored few books, and one of them awarded by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a valuable non-government association for the field of astronautics, recognized by United Nations.
    • Source: https://iaaspace.org/members/awards/#Awards-Book
    • The IAA Basic Sciences Book Award (2016) certificate: https://mao.kiev.ua/biblio/mono/IAAsertificat.jpg
  • Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of International Astronomical Union, European Astronomical Society, Ukrainian Astronomical Association and «Science At Risk!» digital platform.
    • IAU: https://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/1253/
    • EAS: https://eas.unige.ch/members.jsp (Yakiv Pavlenko's membership level is not public on website, but he not listed as an actual elected Council member https://eas.unige.ch/council.jsp, no info on the past Council members, though)
    • UAA: https://ukrastro.org.ua/ (website is in maintenance mode)
    • Science At Risk!: https://scienceatrisk.org/expert/pavlenko-yakiv-volodymyrovych

  I suppose its enough to proof the notability. Appsoft4 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's helpful. I've copied it to the discussion for you. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)