Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovidiu-Mihai Ionel

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidiu-Mihai Ionel

Several reasons for deletion. First, no convincing Google hits. Second, no assertion of particular notability - certainly nothing verifiable. Third, no valid references: the first link leads to a self-published forum, the second doesn't load, and the third isn't about him. As an aside, this is the author's only contribution, and certain phrases ("the nonsense teachers are teaching children these days", "how media is controlling our life") are amusingly inappropriate. In sum, though: no real references or assertion of notability; possible self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourcable, self-promotion. The few sources used are unreliable (one is self-published, the other, as Biru says, are quoted for no apparent reason). The article is riddled with WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR, and it simply cannot be salvaged (given that the person simply does not appear in reliable sources). Dahn (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Why this is for AfD? I am puzzled to see an article which is a candidate for speedy deletion is brought in AfD discussion. What kind of nomination is this? WP:AfD claearly states before nominating any article for AfD, "confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, the result's the same, only with a few days' delay - no need to get alarmed. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Buckshot06(prof) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But I declined the speedy; it doesn't meet the criteria. There is nothing in the criteria to allow the subjects to request deletion of their own articles; notability is vaguely established. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient secondary sources to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (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.