Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristide Razu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. v/r - TP 20:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aristide Razu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See the "multiple issues" tags, and note that the article only has reliable sources for the trivial facts marked by footnotes 1 and 2. The article is unlikely to improve; the major contributor, Aristiderazu (talk · contribs), a descendent of the general, has requested deletion both by blanking the page and by a message on his talk page. John of Reading (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteReluctant Keep. Per nom. Article is messy. Probably hard to find reliable sources even if someone wanted to. Plus, it's not clear subject is notable based on the assertions in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm finding it very difficult to understand how anyone could think that a general in command of a division in wartime is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article itself needs a large amount of work to get it to a good quality article, the quality of the article is not in question, but the notability of the subject of the article. assuming good faith regarding the few references to reliable sources provided, the subject passes WP:SOLDIER. As the subject is a historic general from a nation woes military history in a period that isn't very well covered in English sources, it maybe difficult to find additional reliable sources in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at the article makes me dizzy. Are there any verifiable, reliable sources currently in the article that establish notability based on WP:SOLDIER (which, admittedly, isn't hard to satisfy)? If so, I would reluctantly change my vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the three reliable sources provided, this one, appears to indicate that the subject was a general during a military conflict, commanding a Division. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very hard to read, but I agree. Maybe we need another article on the other general mentioned on that page. :-) Although it doesn't go to notability, I remember when the controversy of the relative editing the article first arose, I tried to make sense of what the Razu article says in conjunction with other articles discussing some of the same battles, for example, Romania during World War I. There appeared to be conflicting statements in the articles, and given the age of the sources and the language difficulties associated with reading the sources, I just threw my hands up in the air. It does relate back to the mess, though, raised by John, which if technically not a reason to delete an article, will probably leave this article out there, mess included. Still, I'll change my vote to Keep, but I believe that if the consensus is to keep the article, it would be appropriate to remove all unsourced material from the article, even if it reduces it to a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvement of the article, is always recommended, especially given venerability of text. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very hard to read, but I agree. Maybe we need another article on the other general mentioned on that page. :-) Although it doesn't go to notability, I remember when the controversy of the relative editing the article first arose, I tried to make sense of what the Razu article says in conjunction with other articles discussing some of the same battles, for example, Romania during World War I. There appeared to be conflicting statements in the articles, and given the age of the sources and the language difficulties associated with reading the sources, I just threw my hands up in the air. It does relate back to the mess, though, raised by John, which if technically not a reason to delete an article, will probably leave this article out there, mess included. Still, I'll change my vote to Keep, but I believe that if the consensus is to keep the article, it would be appropriate to remove all unsourced material from the article, even if it reduces it to a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Our guideline on the topic says that general officers are usually considered notable, and this one commanded a division in combat. Is anyone here arguing that we should delete Clarence_R._Huebner, for one example? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (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.