Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenia Mihalea

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. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Mihalea[edit]

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

The main claim to notability here seems to be that the subject is a member of the Writers' Union of Romania. Well, a couple of recent articles in the Romanian press underscore the fact that entering the union is not that difficult or that big a deal; even the head of one of its largest chapters has said as much. Membership in the union certainly doesn't rise to WP:PROF criterion 3. And we've recently deleted at least three articles on members: here (under Ionuţ Caragea), here and here. Other than that, I see no sources confirming the subject is notable under the WP:AUTH criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, I created the article after seeing it listed under the Requested article page, under Romania. I tried finding sources to assert the notability, but honestly couldn't find any, as online information for Eugenia seems to be hard to come by. Since Mihalea's work isn't that notable to begin with, and you provided evidence that being a member of the Writer's Union of Romanian isn't that hard to join, I would support the deletion of the article, unless someone else can find reasons to keep the article. So my vote, as the author, is to delete. theblueflamingo^Squawk 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough sources. If there are sources out there, I didn't find any on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 6 July 2011 (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.