Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Săhleanu

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 keep. czar ⨹ 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Săhleanu[edit]

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

I think the main issue here is that there are essentially no independent sources attesting notability. In fact, the article text is entirely unsourced, and almost the only citations we do have are to Google Books editions of Săhleanu's works. Furthermore, the text is written by his son, and you can tell. It verges on hagiography and is not an objective biography.

I do believe there's a slight chance Săhleanu may be notable, and I realize there isn't abundant information available online about second-tier Romanian scientists from the 1960s and '70s. Still, he shouldn't get a free pass because of that. If someone can show solid evidence of notability as expressed through independent sources, I'd be glad to revise my opinion, but if not, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ there is some possibility of notability, but no evidence of it, as stated by Biruitorul. A book search turns up some mentions of Săhleanu, with one source calling him a "prominent physician and anthropologist". However, there isn't anything indepth. Săhleanu's work doesn't have a lot of citations (but I'm not sure what to really expect from a non-English-speaking person who was active 50 years ago either). Certainly, I am open to change my opinion if good evidence is presented. Pinging @78.26: who accepted this at AfC for input.

As to the COI, it is not relevant for AfD purposes. However, if kept the article would need to be stubified per WP:V. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See upadted opinion below --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Thanks for the ping, ThaddeusB. I accepted this article because he meets WP:NACADEMICS under criteria #6, as the head of the Geriatrics Department (although the article does not make it clear if this is for a standalone institution, or a department within an institution.) The man appears more than marginally notable, particularly in the field of Romanian Education. Unfortunately, as I speak no Romanian whatsoever, I'm not a good candidate to search for Romanian sources. However, as this is not a BLP, inline citations are not required, and only controversial claims require direct citation. Despite the COI, I have no reason to doubt the claims presented, and as such it is indeed notable. So what should be removed are a)controversial claims b)hoaxes (if it be such) c)trivial, non-notable information not presenting useful information about the subject d)peacockery and the like. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- "He meets WP:NACADEMICS under criteria #6, as the head of the Geriatrics Department" - let me stop you right there, if I may, and ask for verifiable evidence that that was the case.
- By the way, even if he was "Head of Department" within the Ana Aslan Institute, that would not necessarily mean he met criterion (the singular of criteria) number 6. Said institute has many departments with many heads, none of whom necessarily is notable. The institute's leadership, perhaps, but that's a different matter: we have not even a claim that he belonged to the management. In any event, this is all speculation: do come up with verifiable sources on this, and then we can discuss further.
- "The man appears more than marginally notable, particularly in the field of Romanian Education." Based on what sources, exactly?
- "As this is not a BLP, inline citations are not required, and only controversial claims require direct citation" - so WP:V doesn't apply in the case of deceased individuals, and we can write whatever we feel about them? That's news to me, and, I would imagine, to anyone who takes the concept of verifiability seriously.
- "I have no reason to doubt the claims presented, and as such it is indeed notable" - interesting logic: write what you feel like, sources be damned, and voilà, we have notability!
- "So what should be removed are ….." But unsourced, unverified and indeed unverifiable claims are just fine, am I right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clear things up, best practice is to cite all material. However, citations are not strictly required for non-contentious material. That said, the existance of RS are required to prove notability, of course... It was a reasonable AfC acceptance, but now notability is challenged and must be demonstrated by reliable sources. The link I provided above can be one piece toward establishing notability, but I think we need more than that and department chairmanship (I believe criteria #6 is mostly for university leadership except for super prestigious colleges). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's approval/deletion process I was surprised to read the comments above. "I do believe there's a slight chance Săhleanu may be notable" is a strange comment about a person that has (verifiably) authored 32 books. As ThaddeusB rightly observed "I'm not sure what to really expect from a non-English-speaking person who was active 50 years ago" to which I would add "in a Communist country isolated from contacts with the Western scientific world". Nevertheless I understand the need for additional independent references to Victor Sahleanu. I did some more research for such sources and I found this recent one http://www.caleaeuropeana.ro/simpozionul-fr-i-rainer-2013-antropologie-si-mediu-dedicat-lui-victor-aurelian-sahleanu/ , which would satisfy, I believe, the criteria to include my father's entry in Wikipedia. The page has versions in three languages, Romanian, English and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3880:B70:217:F2FF:FE01:B6FE (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your reponse. The link provided is a symposium in honary of Săhleanu, which is a pretty good indication of notability. It states Săhleanu "was a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Honorary Member of the Association of Scientists, Physicians Society of Writers and publishers and other foreign scientific societies. In 1990 the French Academy awarded him a gold medal for national devotion." (rough Google translation). That, combined with the book reference ("prominent physician and anthropologist") above, is probably sufficient to establish notability, so I will change to keep... As should not be surprising, most English Wikipedians do not speak Romanian or have the slightest clue where to look for Romanian reliable sources. If at all possible, do you think you could find some more (likely offline) sources? A single newspaper obituary, for example, would go a long way to improving the article. Even US newspapers from 1997 are not generally found online, but I'd imagine you should be able to get access to Romanian newspapers from then at a local library (if you happen to still live in Romania). Scan or take a picture of any offline sources you find and I will be happy to help you incorporate them into the article. (I can be reached via email if desired.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this will clear up any remaining doubt about his notability. Perhaps Biruitorul would like to withdraw the nomination now so we can focus on fixing up the article instead of worrying about (now obvious) notability? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 10 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 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though very drasticcutting will be needed. I have my doubts about most of the individual awards, andabout the likely scientific merit, but he was a sufficiently importat figure. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (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.