Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Felix Taşcă

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Felix Taşcă

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

The man did nothing in particular that was notable; he had a fairly normal career (unreferenced, anyway) and was a genealogy hobbyist. The sources for that include a book for which no page number is given, a lecture Taşcă delivered (...), and a donor list. This forms part of a series of crufty articles on the Taşcă family (itself now gone), and should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy was once a bureaucrat in a Romanian ministry (short of WP:POLITICIAN, even contextually), and the scholarly work is of no impact (even contextually). If his claim to fame is belonging to the Romanian Institute of Genealogy and Heraldry "Sever Zotta" (?!), let me note that the institution itself may not be up to notability standards. As Biruitorul notes, this is the leftover cruft from a very inventive but non-encyclopedic attempt to promote a particular patrician clan, whose members were, alas, mostly non-notable as far as entries here go. Dahn (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing in the article that has any chance of leading to a pass of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 9 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.