Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ştefan Balş


 * 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   speedy delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ştefan Balş

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references, notability not established for over 5 years.  Puffin  Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google Books is giving me a lot of hits in Romanian, as I might expect. A reading of the article suggests the sort of accomplishments that ought to be covered in reliable sources; that those sources aren't included in the article (or aren't in English) does not a reason for deletion make. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:PROF criterion 3. A year before his death, he was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy, and I would argue that any member of that body is notable.
 * Having said that, yes, the lack of references is glaring, and at some point, that should be addressed. Unfortunately, what's online, even in books, is mainly just routine mentions (Balş restored this church, Balş restored that church), so this article may actually require (!) print sources. - Biruitorul Talk 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough has emerged including his election to the Romanian Academy to show that he is notable. Moreover, there is no reason to suggest that the article is incorrect although it could doubtless be considerably expanded. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep As mentioned, qualifies under WP:PROF#3. He is also subject of a biography in the Grove Dictionary of Art. . Actually, on further review, Delete as a verbatim copy of copyrighted text from Grove. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.