Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anca Cristofovici

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Cristofovici

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

There's no particular indication this individual is notable, as defined by WP:AUTHOR. Certainly, the current reference, a flyer for a program in which the subject participated, in no way constitutes an independent source attesting notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. I'm not particularly invested in the Anca Cristofovici page - beyond the four or five mostly minor edits that I contributed - but I don't support deleting the page. I agree with 'Biruitorul' that 'notability' has not been established according a strict interpretation of the guidelines in WP:AUTHOR, but this is a new page and future contributions may take care of that. - Xenxax (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – with no prejudice. It's a well done article, but I wasn't able to find any in-depth reviews, either in English or French. Including the one in External links, which was dead, and I couldn't find that either. I'd like to advise the author to submit it again if the forthcoming novel gets some significant reviews. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as defined by wikipedia. Should this hypothetically change at some point, content can simply be recreated by admins -- the editor(s) who wish to recreate said content will simply have to point out other sources they can add to this version of the article, and how they establish notability. No need for special pleading here. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. This article is a start, and can be developed further. In addition to fleshing out Cristofovici's own work, I would like to emphasize her role as the translator of Nobel candidate Ana Blandiana, which introduced her to the English-speaking world. It was AC's translation of Hour of Sand that led Seamus Heaney to promote Blandiana's work in When the Tunnels Meet. Cristofovici's contributions as a critic of photography and modern fiction can be developed. References can be added. --GherkinM75 (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi, GherkinM75. As I said above, I think it's well done and I'm open to changing my !vote. What we need most is secondary sources talking about her. Google doesn't find everything, especially in books, so we may have missed those. If there are references for Heaney saying that or talking about her as a critic that would help. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. I totally agree with Gherkin's reasoning and would allow time for further development and finding additional references. I vote to have the deletion template removed. - Mookalx (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After 1 week, what is the progress? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 02:07, 15 January 2015 (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.