Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Bulzan

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Bulzan[edit]

(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) — Fbulzan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

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.