Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Romania. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Romania|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Romania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Romania

[edit]
Eduard Dorneanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created as a draft which was declined twice and then moved to mainspace by the draft creator, who restored it to mainspace after it had been draftified again. I have cleaned it up pretty extensively and looked for better sources, but I can't see how WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG are met – it looks like a case of an up-and-coming writer who is not yet notable. The single possibly independent source in the article (other than all the sources that don't mention Dorneanu) gives me a warning so I have not assessed that, but one source would not be sufficient in any case. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing. bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be kept, she seems notable in her own country Natlaur (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share the same thoughts, I've seen Kira Hagi's article and honestly I think the Article still have what to be improved, as the movies she acted in, e.g. 167.250.71.19 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Sorina Munteanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cocobb8’s new source, and also this both of which cover her and her career in depth. Cocobb8, any chance you’re a Romanian speaker so you can add the information from those sources to the article. While the standard is “sources exist in the world” not “sources are currently cited in the article”, having them in there might stop this happening again…
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdum4242, did you notice that Cocobb8 might have found the source but they aren't arguing to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I did notice that, but also thought that was because the standard was that there needed to be more than one solid source, from different outlets, which was why they were unsure? When you put theirs together with mine, together with the source cited in the article as currently written, you get three seperate sources, focused on her rather than passing mentions, separated by 8 years giving coverage over time? Also, since the deletion recommendation was on BLP grounds, I checked the applicable guidelines and they were that the article ticked off
The article doesn’t seem like Original Research, it seems to be written in a NPOV, and nothing in it was contentious or derogatory that I could tell. That just leaves Verifiability, and passing notability, with WP:MUSIC suggesting international touring was a strong sign of potential notability. Verifiability would depend on whether the sources the information was found in were reliable, and… they seem to be? Although not speaking Romanian I had to rely on Google translate there.
Am I missing something obvious? (and also thanks again for taking the time to walk me through this, when I can see from all your work on this project that you’re super busy). Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Absurdum4242, the strong sign of notability is good. Are you suggesting it is enough? They're not quite the same thing. While you might decide to hold off on nominating an article for deletion because there is a "strong sign of potential notability", by the time we're at AfD what we want to see is actual evidence of notability. You're welcome to argue that the evidence we have is indeed enough evidence, or that it's close enough to "enough evidence" that the strong potential for further sources clinches it for you. Those are valid AfD positions. But "there isn't enough here yet, but I bet there is more out there" is usually not taken as grounds for a keep. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Not suggesting that it’s enough, just running through the steps step by step. If it had failed WP:NMUSIC completely I’d have stopped there. And if the articles only mentioned local performances inside Romania, I would err on the side of her not being notable, because it’s likely at that stage that there are no sources I’m missing, whereas a verified decade long career in numerous countries, there’s a much greater chance there are other sources out there in the world. Likewise, while they don’t strictly count for notability, there were 40-50 sources with passing mentions of her performances / longer mentions from non-independent sources as well as the three independent sources that I think DO count - the sheer number of them, again over years, makes me think it’s likely that there are better sources out there that I’m just missing, especially since google isn’t great for non-English sources / a lot of arts sources are physical rather than online. Which, again, isn’t proof, but if I hadn’t seen all those extra sources, I’d have been more likely to err on the side of her not being notable, assuming I had found what was out there. Which is why I voted delete for other article which lacked all this. GIVEN all that, I was arguing along the lines you suggested - the three sources seem like enough evidence for me, especially with the added strong potential for further sources. But I’m not dogmatic about it - this was an orphaned nomination, so I thought I would at least take a look to avoid a delete close / re-listing for lack of discussion. If anyone else wants to argue deletion, I’m all for them to do so, discussion to reach consensus is the whole point of the exercise after all. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also