Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Craciun


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Angela Craciun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not really seeing the notability here. For one, the sourcing is abysmal. For starters, we have two social network profiles (!) - obviously not independent sources. We then have a snippet - I checked to see just what this was about, and it begins: "My sincere thanks are due to Prof. Angela Crăciun" (by the way, that's the correct spelling of her name). I fail to see how an acknowledgment in a preface can be used to validate a claim of notability; at best, this is a classic case of synthesis. We then have the subject's biography on her own website and a press release hosted there - needless to say, not independent. Finally, there's another bit of PR, a photo-op from another of her organizations.

I looked around the Romanian press, where the subject is barely covered. There are two puff pieces where we are given exhaustive information about the subject's love of castles, her inability to buy them in Romania, her sacrifices, her grandmother, and on and on. Then there's an announcement that she's withdrawing from a project with one Joel Soler (note the red link). Finally, there's this intriguing reportage from a newspaper of her native town: "Baia Mare native Angela Crăciun bankrupted and sold SC Maralact, then used Romanians' money to buy a castle in France. The incredible story of a cardboard millionaire who robbed the Romanian state of millions of Euros."

So, in sum, I fail to see why the subject is notable. Because she owns a castle? Because she likes to found organizations? Because she dabbles in the arts? Because she bankrupted a small company? All these rationales collapse upon analysis, and while we are certainly not bound by their decision in any way, I suggest we follow the lead of ro.wiki, which agreed to delete her biography back in February 2010. - Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, the Romanian wikipedia got it right in 2010. Being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having an article, WP:LINKEDIN.  This may not be first article attempt here, see User_talk:Wdscenter and Files_for_deletion/2009_August_22.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, promotional. Electoralist (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is simply no bit of the article which would comply with wikipedia requirements; it is puff-piece for someone of encyclopedic irrelevancy. Dahn (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Expert opinion might be needed here.Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing yet actually suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:52, 23 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.