Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Bulzan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:59, 18 October 2013

Carmen Bulzan

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

Nice résumé, but I fail to see convincing evidence the subject passes WP:PROF. I do see the article is authored by single-purpose account Fbulzan... - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete. Despite the article's promotional nature there seems to be no pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reviews so far. I will add more references to the mentioned information so it can better validate and prove the impact of the accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbulzan (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Keep. See: https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=iiddUsjgNdDy0gXZ24CQAw#q=Carmen+Bulzan In Romanian academic society she must be very well known, English version of wikipedia is "international". She can not be "discriminated" because of being a Romanian. Wikipedia has enough space to be generous. Aster554 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Need we point out the obvious? One, Aster554 has just joined Wikipedia, his other main contribution being to try and save an article about another academic of dubious notability. Two, a Google search alone is no indicator of notability (WP:GHITS), and the other assertions are meaningless. It must be shown concretely that the subject meets one of the WP:PROF criteria, or the article should be deleted, without reference to nonsense about "discrimination". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat shows 6 books with cumulative holdings of 8 copies and WoS shows 1 research publication that has never been cited. Article is basically a CV consisting mostly of original research and there are no secondary sources given, evidently because none exist. Absolutely non-controversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The claims in the article look to me like a better fit for WP:GNG than WP:PROF. But the only thing resembling a reliable source that has been presented so far is the gds.ro story (certainly a video of a book launch party does not count as a reliable source). But we need multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, and even the gds.ro story does not have the necessary in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 **Need we point out the obvious? One, [[Special:Contributions/Aster554|Aster554]] has just joined Wikipedia, his other main contribution being to try and save an article about another academic of dubious notability. Two, a Google search alone is no indicator of notability ([[WP:GHITS]]), and the other assertions are meaningless. It must be shown concretely that the subject meets one of the [[WP:PROF]] criteria, or the article should be deleted, without reference to nonsense about "discrimination". - [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 13:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. WorldCat [http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=affiliate&ai=Washington_cmanton&q=Carmen+Bulzan&wcsbtn2w.x=53&wcsbtn2w.y=13 shows] 6 books with cumulative holdings of 8 copies and WoS shows 1 research publication that has never been cited. Article is basically a [[WP:RESUME|CV]] consisting mostly of [[WP:OR|original research]] and there are no [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] given, evidently because none exist. Absolutely non-controversial delete. [[User:Agricola44|Agricola44]] ([[User talk:Agricola44|talk]]) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC).
+*'''Delete'''. The claims in the article look to me like a better fit for [[WP:GNG]] than [[WP:PROF]]. But the only thing resembling a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that has been presented so far is the [http://www.gds.ro/Eveniment/2002-07-22/Stiri+diverse gds.ro] story (certainly a video of a book launch party does not count as a reliable source). But we need multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, and even the gds.ro story does not have the necessary in-depth coverage. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)