Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Axente

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. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Axente[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The sources fall into four main categories:

Company bios: [1], [2]
Those “one hundred relevant people” type lists: [3], [4], [5], [6]
- A report on one of those lists: in line with the Romanian press’s love for the “Romanians who make good” type stories
Passing press quotes: [7], [8], [9]
Reports where the subject is 1 of 10 contributors or 1 of 17
No mention here

While the subject is indeed an expert in a niche field, I submit the sources do not rise to the “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” standard set by WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been somewhat improved since I first saw it, but the fundamental problem remains: the article desperately tries to make the subject seem more 'important' than she probably is, and does that by stretching the sources beyond breaking point. The article in The Guardian appears in a column sponsored by her employer. The expert contribution to the UNESCO report means that she was one of 17 people who provided comments. Her alleged inclusion on the (barely notable) 'most influential' list turns out to be merely long-list nomination for inclusion. That sort of thing, throughout. (It has done well to survive a speedy request and PROD, though, I'll give it that much.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a person who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She’s a standard employee at a big 4 firm. Not even a leader at the respective firm. What is this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:F08:8201:689A:593D:2353:AAB5 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing is found (ping me if so). The current sourcing is junk-like, and none of it appears to be in-depth. 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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.