Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dafin F. Muresanu

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. I am closing this as delete, despite lingering doubts about possible notability. The article as it currently stands is basically irredeemable: it reads like a CV, is full of unsourced stuff, and much of what is there really is trivial (society memberships and such). Hence: delete per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation of a well-sourced article, if notability can be shown unequivocally. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dafin F. Muresanu[edit]

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

As far as the sources presented are concerned, there really is no indication of encyclopedic notability. At first, this looks promising, but it's actually a press release, and in any case isn't really quotable. This is an independent source, but only has passing mention of the subject. Other than that, the sources are all connected with the subject.

I do think there's a chance this individual may be notable, but we do need a discussion first. If someone can show evidence of notability as defined by WP:PROF or WP:BIO, I'd be glad to reconsider, but that just isn't apparent at the moment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may be notable, but it is difficult to tell with all the apparent puffery here. For instance, I believe that none of the long list of memberships in societies count for much; they belong in a cv, not in an encyclopedia article. In particular becoming a member (not fellow) of AAAS is something anyone who cares to subscribe to Science does. Being a Fellow of ANA seems superficially to be more promising, but their membership requirements make it clear that this level of membership is open to all tenured faculty; that is, it is not the highly selective honor considered by WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix up. I agree with the above comment that too much of what is here is CV material. Also, most of the assertions about positions and membership are as yet unsourced. I cleaned up a few refs and added some 'cite needed' notes. The citations need to be brought more into line with WP:CITE (e.g. include dates and full article titles), not just for pedantic purposes but because it makes it easier to tell what is being cited. I also recommend leaving the first paragraph as the introductory material, and creating a section immediately after with a heading like "Professional activity". Right now the intro is too long, and the remainder of the article is only lists. It'll look much better with a shorter intro and more text. Of the lists, I would leave only the major awards (although each needs a citation), and perhaps a selected list of books (but not all). At that point it should look like a good WP article for an academic. (I'll start the talk page with these suggestions.) LaMona (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – My feeling is that he's probably notable, but it's hard to tell. Perhaps WP:NPROF #C6 for President of the Romanian Society of Neurology. He's a prolific author, but only one paper with 100 cites in GS and cites go down rapidly from there. The scientific achievements are hard for a lay person to decipher. I have no idea how significant they are. The article should say. I agree that the CV stuff should be trimmed drastically. At least move the awards and memberships out of the lead. The "Information related to scientific activity" section should be rewritten as a text paragraph, which could replace a lot of the CV material. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:11, 19 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 19 December 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, Michig (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rumanian subject is apparently well-credentialed, but otherwise lacks notability for en.wi. (Added missing AfD tag to creator's TP.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2015 (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.