Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arina Avram


 * 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. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Arina Avram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject doesn't have the level of coverage demanded by WP:AUTHOR. Let's look at the sources presented.


 * An article written by the subject. Meaningless in terms of showing notability.
 * Another article. Also meaningless.
 * Mention in a list of names on a blog. Needless to say, meaningless.
 * A book review on a blog. Meaningless!
 * A citation on a blog. Meaningless...
 * A book sale page, and another. Can we say meaningless?

OK, so that leaves this, a five-sentence review in a fairly shady online-only newspaper; and this, an equally brief review in a slightly more credible paper. (And I do emphasize slightly, since the paper was owned by Dan Voiculescu, who now sits in prison for money laundering.) Well, I believe that doesn't quite meet the standard: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent... reviews". We need more substantial coverage than what exists at the moment, and that simply doesn't appear to exist, so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &mdash;innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. &mdash;innotata 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. &mdash;innotata 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out Ziua Veche is not shady as far as I can tell. It is published in print as a insert of ro:Puterea. See ro:Ziua Veche. JTdale   Talk 07:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * JTdale, Ziua Veche is largely composed of ex-Ziua staff, which did have a reputation for shadiness. (Its main figure, Sorin Roşca-Stănescu, just got 2½ years in prison for fraud.) However, that is a matter of opinion and I won't contest yours. What is not subject to opinion is circulation rankings of Romanian newspapers and news sites: you will note that neither Ziua Veche nor Puterea feature on either (fairly lengthy) list. So, while Ziua Veche may be utterly respectable, it's equally marginal.
 * To return to the issue at hand: even if we accept the two reviews as perfectly legitimate, it's rather a stretch to say that because of them (and them alone, since there's nothing else of substance), the subject passes WP:AUTHOR point 3. I mean, how would the article even look after we stripped out all the unquotable material? "Arina Avram is a Romanian writer whose books Mari minuni, mari mistere and Enciclopedia înțelepciunii each received a review". That's basically all we have, and if I put it this way, its insufficiency will, I trust, seem apparent. - Biruitorul Talk 14:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't contest she seems to be lacking in sources in any case, though we are trying to look in English. Do you speak/read Romanian? JTdale   Talk 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a native speaker. I've made a good-faith attempt to find sources on her in Romanian, but they simply aren't there, as far as I can see.
 * And by the way, the single-purpose account behind this article has also spammed fr.wiki, es.wiki, it.wiki and sv.wiki. - Biruitorul Talk 02:41, 22 October 2014 (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.