Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudiu Popa (2nd nomination)

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Popa[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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are very poor. Not really about him. No secondary referencing. scope_creep^Talk 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep I argued that a portion of sources are highly-reliable. These reputable citations included The Star, and CBC News. There had also been numerous Youtube videos published by reliable news agencies such as CTV News, hence they inherited their level of reliability. What do you mean "Not really about him." Wingwatchers (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I believe Popa is notable per [1]. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is determined by independent reliable sources, right? Wingwatchers (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first reference is him talking about a security breach. The 2nd ref is a profile he wrote. He is not an academic. The third ref is a profile in the document. 4th ref is him talking about a breach of children school. 5th is a small note. There is a not a single secondary source amongst the lot of them. There is one review of one of his books, but that is not sufficient on this own. It is WP:BLP. It needs real secondary source to stay in mainspace. Don't post up raw search URL like, they are not permissable at Afd. You can find information on almost every person on the planet by doing a search like that. It is the quality of the information that counts. It is not valid. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Youtube videos, and why are these refs credible for unreliability? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: What is the link to Youtube videos? I see there is a guy who is a comedian with the same name. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, ref 9, 10 and 11. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Youtube references are primary and they have less than 9000 views, for the top viewed vlog. The rest are much less than that. Comparing the view countm on a like for like basis on that alone. For example, an influencer or somebody would looking to prove notabiliy by that channel alone, it would be need to be 250k views at least, on several vlogs. The reality is that there is no secondary sources for this individual. None. He is dude doing his job and good on him. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: it doesn't matter that the videos had little to no views. As long as it is published by a reliable news agency, it is reliable, and therefore it can justify the notability. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY: the videos along with some other refs are from reliable third party sites. They are not primary sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable third party sites is meaningless. Videos and vlogs need to have at least 250k views to support an article if there is no secondary sources, as there is here. Nobody watches the vlogs. The children's school was his daughters. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this article has previously been deleted and is relatively new, relisting to see if more than 2 participants can be found to discuss and a consensus found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:BASIC. The sources that come from reliable third-parties are all interviews of the subject about something within their field of expertise. These sources are not secondary, not independent of the subject, and do not include significant coverage of him. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with SailingInABathTub. Has taught classes at University of Toronto, and after looking at his citation metrics, also fails WP:NACADEMIC. Pilaz (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (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.