Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Emilian

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. The assertion that the articles fail WP:BASIC was not rebutted during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iurie Emilian[edit]

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

It's not quite clear what these guys' claim to notability is supposed to be. They're both mid-level officials in a private organization, and have received essentially zero independent coverage. These people aren't exempt from WP:GNG, which they fail; thus, the articles should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-it's not just some "private organization", Scouting is the world's largest youth movement with some 30+ million members, and Emilian is the Director for the region encompassing Russia and the former Soviet states. That's pretty big.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - agree with Kintetsubuffalo --Egel _Reaction? 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not a single third-party reference about this guy that I can find, much less one that discusses him in-depth. There is one mention of a Iurie Emilian in a book from 2010 but it has nothing to do with Scouting and it's not even verified it's the same guy. Being executive director of a regional board of an international organization does not meet WP:GNG on its own. Without the third-party coverage, the only way he would meet GNG is if he had received some kind of prestigious award, for example, Order of the Republic (Moldova) (which again probably would have been mentioned in a news article.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kintetsubuffalo --evrik ^(talk) 15:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - The World Organization of the Scout Movement is not just any private organization, and they aren't just mid-level officials. The president of a national Scouting organization is notable (which position Sergiu Chirică held), as is director or chair of one of the six regions of the World Scout Bureau. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a provision in WP:BIO which states this, or are you implying that WP:GNG/WP:BASIC are irrelevant in this case? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "implying" nonsense, reading things into others' statements that are not there, is your red herring I spoke about, a cute little ploy often used in these AfDs where the nom feels he must answer every single "keep" vote. Seen your type a lot around here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me rephrase, and this applies equally to your similar comment below. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Can you demonstrate that the subjects meet the universal standard for notability as applied to biographies? (That standard, I will remind you, makes no exemption for mid-ranked bureaucrats in a private organization that happens to interest you.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in their own right and doesn't "inherit" notability from being a member of the Scouts administration. It may be that the article on the scouts might mention this person but that that does not mean that this person merits their own article. Fails WP:BIO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Chirică[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Strong Keep for the same reasons, and these really should be made separate nominations, not bundled together.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - agree with Kintetsubuffalo --Egel _Reaction? 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, whatever the dimensions of their organization happen to be — and they're not quite at the top — WP:GNG/WP:BASIC still apply, and there's no indication they meet those criteria. Are you suggesting they don't have to? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice red herring.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being a "red herring", this is a question that lies at the crux of the debate. Are you able to demonstrate that these individuals "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? If yes, please do so, and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. If not, we cannot presume notability and should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "suggesting" nonsense, reading things into others' statements that are not there, is your red herring I spoke about, a cute little ploy often used in these AfDs where the nom feels he must answer every single "keep" vote. Seen your type a lot around here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sergiu Chirică for same reason. There's an economist with this name who has been quoted on financial matters but even if it's the same guy, it again fails GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kintetsubuffalo --evrik ^(talk) 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Notability must be established by WP:RS that are independent of the subject. I can find none.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. No indication of notability in their own right and doesn't "inherit" notability from being a member of the Scouts administration. It may be that the article on the scouts might mention this person but that that does not mean that this person merits their own article. Fails WP:BIO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:16, 11 December 2016 (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.