Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liviu Tudor

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. With only one "weak" keep opinion, the preponderance of what few opinions have been offered favor deletion. Sandstein 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Tudor

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

Let's first get out of the way the "sources" that do nothing in terms of demonstrating notability: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

So what are we left with? A handful of interviews/puff pieces in business magazines. I'd say: not enough to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. I mean, what's this guy's claim to fame? He's rich, but not notably so. He has a couple of companies, heads up a couple of business associations – all well and good, but I don't see how that translates into passing WP:BIO.

Oh, and the kicker: two single-purpose accounts are behind this article, Noni Surugiu and Ioana Surugiu. Miss Surugiu is an "Online Advisor at Webspire". Webspire "implements digital strategies, online marketing strategies for content and e-commerce sites, communications & PR strategies, editorial strategies..." you get the point. Yup, it's a paid biography. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems notable enough to me. Maybe the sources could be improved if some seem biased or subjective.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly makes you lean towards notabilty, @Codrinb:? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is a CEO of a investment company and president of a number of international organizations.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being a CEO does not automatically confer notability. Even if Genesis Development were notable, the fact that he is its CEO is not a guarantee of notability.

2) The closest the second claim comes to being true is in the fact that he is vice president of the European Property Federation. Again, so what? What multiple independent sources have commented on this fact?

3) Let's face it: this is corporate spam, a paid article written by a PR firm for promotional purposes. It has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This article's subject is not notable enough but it seems clearly that AndraRBerghoff AndraRBerghoff tries to vandalize the page. All the information submitted is neither accurate or objective and it doesn't have trustful or reliable sources to qoute in order to establish the authencity and notability of the facts. Please take in consideration the deletion. (talk | contribs)‎. , --Xaos1206 (talk) 4:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, this is utter spam. I'm sorry that this sounds like a vote!, but, hah, there's really nothing in the article that I would fined even remotely worthy of a standalone bio. Which also means that there is very little room for debate. Dahn (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources can be found at Romanian newspaper search engine -- GreenC 16:12, 19 June 2014 (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.