Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Scarlat


 * 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 no consensus. There would be scope for a relist, but I think the debate is so hopelessly messed up by the socking that it would benefit more from a clean start to the AFD. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination, but I would suggest anyone deciding whether to do so should consider first the work the User:DGG has done improving the article. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Scarlat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deceptively sourced article. References are to YouTube, Scribd, dependent sources, or show that the subject has written some books. However, not a single source discusses the subject (or his books) in-depth (or even in-passing). Some references do not even mention the subject. No evidence that this meets WP:BIO (or WP:ACADEMIC for that matter). Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Please do NOT delete page. The page was modified to reflect the following facts:
 * 1. The document image of Doctor Honoris Causa - Universitatea Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti, Romania 2007 - this by itself should suffice to document Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the profession of civil engineering as considered by the University of Bucharest, Romania.
 * 2.The document image of the Awarded 1999 “Distinguished Civil Engineer” by the Association of Engineers and Architects, Israel - which by itself should suffice to document Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the profession of civil engineering - as considered by the Israeli Association of Civil Engineers and Architects
 * 3. The special Congress in the Memory of Two Notable Civil Engineers (Scarlat and Stern) that have recently passed away (Israeli Association of Civil Engineers April 2015 - 265 attendees- published in the Israeli professional journal of Civil Engineers in August 2015)
 * 4. Adrian Scarlat appeared on Israeli TV national news (reference #6 and #7) with an outstanding engineering solution (named 'Cage') for an acute earthquake engineering problem (saving kids' lives in schools during an earthquake) - it is my understanding that this fact (appearing on a National TV News show) is enough for noting that a person is of biographical value
 * 5. Adrian Scarlat was mentioned in a whole chapter in a book titled "Personalities in Romanian Civil Engineering" - ref #1 - this by itself should suffice noting Adrian Scarlat was an exceptional person in the civil engineering profession.
 * Hope the above is enough evidence that Adrian Scarlat is a person worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia.
 * Thanks for your consideration. Mayscarlat (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Mayscarlat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Keep  I oppose deletion since I knew Adrian Scarlat and I took the time and actually read the Wikipedia policies on bios of deceased people.
 * I would like to attract your attention to the fact that the books referenced are NOT self published (CRC, Taylor & Francis, etc.) - thus should be considered good "secondary sources" by Wikipedia.
 * The above together with the fact that Adrian Scarlat was the past Chairman of the Israeli Association for Earthquake Engineering and the de-facto creator of the Israeli Standard for new and existing buildings seismic engineering - should be enough for Wikipedia to have a page mentioning the person, as a noteworthy professional.
 * With your permission I'd like to digress a bit:
 * The "cage' experiment detailed on the Israeli TV (ref. 6 & 7) was considered revolutionary in its engineering principles and being relatively not-expensive, is being considered for implementation by the Jerusalem municipality at the moment - in the city and other areas in the Jordan valley - all considered high-risk for a seismic catastrophe. Even if you do not understand the language of the TV piece - you can still get a translator - please take a moment and just see with your own eyes the person (I think Scarlat was in his eighties at the time !), the explosion simulating the destruction caused by an earthquake and then the mannequins on the floors, that simulate school children during such a catastrophe. This 'cage' experiment (appears on YouTube from different TV channels and perspectives), was considered a huge engineering success (just watch how many people including reps from IDF, the Jerusalem mayor and others were present, interviewed, etc) - is only one of many examples of this person capabilities in civil engineering.
 * There are some references on the page that are not in English - in Romanian and some are in Hebrew. I'd suggest before deleting the page on Adrian Scarlat, you ask other Wikipedia editor colleagues, fluent in these languages to actually take a look and let you know whether these references are relevant or not.
 * Saying that "not a single source discusses the subject or his books in-depth or even in-passing" - is just not true nor fair to the subject at hand.
 * Then there is the Doctor Honoris Causa bestowed by his alma mater - The Technical University of Bucharest, Romania. As mentioned in this discussion by mayscarlat - this fact alone should be enough evidence for the Wikipedia editors about Scarlat worthiness as a professional.
 * Last year I was one of those that participated in a special congress "in memoriam" of 2 noteworthy civil engineers - Stern & Scarlat. There were more than 200 attendees at this one day professional congress. I can assure you - the Israeli Association of Civil Engineers does not bestow this kind of honor to other engineers it doesn't think as "worthy".
 * While I admit I was asked by family members that have submitted the original page to Wikipedia to intervene on his behalf and dissuade you from deleting the page - it is actually an honour for me to 'testify' on Scarlat reputation.
 * Dr. Scarlat was truly an outstanding person in the domain of civil engineering in general and seismic engineering specifically in Israel, Romania, Kenya, Iran, Turkey, Japan and numerous other countries and he is missed by many of his former students and colleagues. Myself included.
 * Respectfully yours, Neotoren (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment All this may very well be true. However, we need reliable secundary sources that establish these claims and discuss the subject in depth (see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ACADEMIC). --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment  I oppose the deletion of this page due to allegedly lack of reliable secondary sources: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (Wikipedia rules) All the books published by Scarlat have been vetted by the reputable peer-reviewed sources. These books have NOT been self-published. Thus, the books should be considered "reliable secondary sources".
 * "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact " (Wikipedia rules) The news piece on the outstanding "cage" experiment is referred on several YouTube links, and I understand that YouTube may not be considered a "reliable source" - BUT - it was actually aired on the Israeli National TV channel 2. According to Wikipedia the Israeli channel 2 is respectable and reliable source and it has its own Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_2_(Israel). Thus the news piece should be considered reliable secondary sources.
 * The Doctor Honoris Causa (awarded to Scarlat by the University of Bucharest) is by definition the result of a "peer-reviewed" process and the University of Bucharest Romania is an accredited university with its own page on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bucharest. Thus the Doctor Honoris Causa by University of Bucharest should be considered a "reliable source".
 * The Association of Engineers and Architects awarded Adrian Scarlat the 1999 “Distinguished Civil Engineer”. This association is by definition a "peer-reviewed" group of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Engineers_in_Israel) thus should be considered a reliable secondary source - according to Wikipedia rules.
 * The Congress in memoriam mentioned above, by the same association - is by definition "peer-reviewed" and thus should be considered a reliable source.
 * Thus, to summarize the above - according to Wikipedia rules - the most important achievements and awards of Scarlat are supported by "reliable sources".
 * Sincerely Neotoren (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Appears the above two editors have a COI with this person (and serious question about sockpuppeting.) As nominator has pointed out, none of the numerous sources in the article are sufficient, as they are either not reliable or do not discuss this person in depth. Article reads like a memorial page by a friend or family member. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as the article (I went through it) and I still found it questionable for noticeably better thus I have to suggest Deleting for now and then Draft if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an existing draft at Draft:Adrian Scarlat. I suspect the current article was copied from it. clpo13(talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

KEEP. Can you please mention which references specifically quoted above are "not reliable or do not discuss this person in depth" ? Is it the whole chapter in the book (#1) ? Are the books Scarlat wrote not reliable ? Is the Doctor Honoris Causa from a non-reliable source ? Is the TV piece on national TV - not reliable source ? Or maybe there are difficulties in translating Romanian / Hebrew languages into English language the issue ? If that is the case I found Google Translator to do a great job in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotoren (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Duplicate vote struck. Each editor can vote only once, but can comment as much as they like. clpo13(talk) 19:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS citations don't make WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC).
 * What is a GS citation ? Neotoren (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Look at WP:Prof. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC).

The book referenced as #1 ref - is not a Google Search. In this book which can be found at http://www.agir.ro/carte/personalitati-romanesti-in-constructii-editia--a-ii-a-110526.html there is a whole chapter dedicated to Scarlat (Noticeability)

Then there are all the books Scarlat actually authored: some are in Romanian and some are in English ... These are not self published books and not Google Search references: http://www.amazon.com/Statica-construct%C3%8C-iilor-structuri-nedeterminate/dp/B0007J4QJK (Romanian) or http://www.amazon.com/Approximate-Methods-Structural-Seismic-Design/dp/0419187502/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (English) The news and Doctor Honoris Causa are not GS. The Israeli TV Channel 2 News reference should be considered reliable and the Doctor Honoris Causa photocopy should be considered reliable.

Can someone please explain why aren't these references I've mentioned - considered "not reliable" ? Why aren't the books authored considered "reliable" ? Is it because of the language - being not English ? How is a Doctor Honoris Causa - considered not relevant ? Not noticeable ? doesn't speak about a person in depth ? Isn't that a contradiction in terms ? Why the national Israeli TV channel 2 considered "not reliable source" ? Why is the Israeli Association of Civil Engineering considered "not reliable" ?

Neotoren (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Neotoren (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The only verifiable news source mentioned in haaretz.com does not mention him at all. I agreed with nominator that all the reference does not support claim for notability. Also, taking into account he is supposed to be notable in Israel, I can confirm, there is nothing in Hebrew that may help to establish the notability. All articles I found either obituary or links to lists of conferences participants or advertisement of company he worked with. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is well-established. He is indeed mentioned in Haaretz as a civil engineering expert and helped to write the building standards in the sphere of earthquake stability. See here . No reason to delete an article about a person who has made notable contributions in his field just because someone claims to "know" him.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The link you provide is what we call an "in-passing mention", not the in-depth coverage that is needed for GNG/BIO/ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Notability is established by the Romanian and Hebrew references. True the Haaretz reference is only mentioning the involvement of Israeli engineers in Iran and thus maybe this ref should be removed. Other than this references are reliable and do support notability. Akitof (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Akitof (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Keep  Notability is well supported by the references (Romanian, Hebrew and English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRobinson65 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)  — DanielRobinson65 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi DanielRobinson65 I didn't find any relevant reference in Hebrew. Could you please post the references you found here? Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion is grossly unsatisfactory, and isn't a reasonable basic for any solid conclusion. A GScholar search turns up nontrivial results, and the commentary I see there on his books suggests standing in his field indicating notability. But nobody's really analyzing matters like that, which should be central. But the article proponents aren't Wikipedians, for the most part, and aren't making the sort of arguments that ordinarily suffice to keep an article. The opponents are, frankly, overreacting to this, and responding more to failure to conform to Wikipedian social norms than the substantive arguments. I suspect it would be best to close this as "no consensus" aand let things simmer for a few months, in hopes informed content editing would make things clearer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My GS search based on the link above shows negligible citations. What did yours give? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)based on the link above.
 * Running the search without enclosing the name in quotes generates a lot of spurious hits, but also legit hits, like this one, that the link above misses. I don't know how systemic a glitch this is, but it's not the first time I've seen it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even doing it your way the citations are totally inadequate. We normally look for (for starters) around 1000 cites, although that will vary vary with field of study. The hit you give is to something written by him, not about him, which is the necessary feature of citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
 * not under WP:PROF. WP:PROF is met by showing someone an expert in their field, which is usually shown for scientists by the citation to their published work. If they are high enough, nothing else is needed. WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG.  DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Technical comment It is a systematic glitch--without using quotes it looks also for articles with authors where one authors name contains Adrian and another Scarlet, and then goes on to list articles where the two words appear anywhere. Additionally,  using quotes and the full names "Adrian Scarlet" will almost always be incomplete because some articles will have only the initials.  -- the best search is generally "A Scarlet".  DGG ( talk )
 * Delete - Person is accomplished, and is a working engineer. Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and as been pointed out by other editors, their scholarly work doesn't rise to the level of passing WP:SCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . Neotoren, DanielRobinson65, and Akitof are ✅ socks of Mayscarlat. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mayscarlat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This person is not notable under conventional thresholds of WP:PROF. As the subject is an engineer, WoS probably gives a better assessment of his research work. A targeted query ("AUTHOR: (scarlat a*) Refined by: RESEARCH AREAS: (CONSTRUCTION BUILDING TECHNOLOGY OR ENGINEERING) Timespan: All years. Search language=Auto") shows 8 papers with citation counts: 3, 1, 1, 0, 0, ... As for books, WorldCat shows his "Approximate methods in structural seismic design" is held by ~150 institutions and that he has several other books in the Romanian language, whose holdings are in the single digits. Finally, we do not conventionally accept "trivial mentions" and such, even in mainstream periodicals, as demonstration of notability. Unless there's something else we're missing, this analysis seems fairly conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Weak keep I made a major cleanup of the article. Engineers can be notable without publishing jjournal articles but it tends to rely on awards and book publications. I think the books show notability.  DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that engineers can be notable without publishing journal articles: I checked WoS only because this path was being debated above, but it's clearly a dead-end. As for books, it is difficult to see how a single book having ~150 holdings demonstrates notability. This is probably pretty typical for a mainstream engineering text and I think it'd be a different discussion if he had several such books. But, for single texts, notability (to me) is something more like >1000 holdings, e.g. any of Timoshenko's, or Landau & Lifshitz Fluids, or Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2016 (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.