Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arina Avram (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Most of this debate has pointlessly been taken up with a procedural wrangle over the propriety of renominating. My ruling on that is that the first AFD was closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination so this AFD is perfectly proper. I note that the first AFD could have legitimately been closed delete on the sole recommendation of the proposer at the discretion of the closing admin. This AFD has had little more (constructive) participation. Nevertheless, what there is, is for delete. No prejudice against recreation if acceptable sources come to light. SpinningSpark 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arina Avram
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first AfD was a dud. Let's hope this one isn't. Aside from the fact that neither of the two links recently added bolster a claim to notability (a publisher's blurb and an Amazon sale page), I have nothing else to add. The arguments for deletion were thoroughly explained at the first deletion discussion, and I encourage participants to read through them before making up their minds. - Biruitorul Talk 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is one of those subjects with sources in predominantly non-English sources that gives the impression of notability (between the sources themselves and taking a look at her own work) without clearly meeting any of the notability criteria based on what I have the capability of assessing. Holding out on !voting weak delete to see what else comes up (hopefully someone with more knowledge/experience with Romanian). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural close This topic has already been at AfD since October 5, and the community has spoken.  WP:NPASR is not a reason to tongue-lash the AfD volunteers for not doing more work.    Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The original AfD failed to draw any !votes other than the nom's. In such cases I believe a speedy renomination is pretty normal (and/or accepted), but I could be wrong. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been around AfD long enough to know that leaving discussions open for three weeks is a recent development. If after three weeks the topic needed more discussion, why was the AfD closed?  Answer: it was time to make a decision and move on.  AfD counts are at record levels, and (I think it is User:DGG who has said that) participation is dropping.  What is so urgent about the current discussion that it couldn't have waited for two months?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to a serious lack of input, the close for the first AfD discussion was a textbook case of invoking WP:NPASR. NorthAmerica1000 10:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if so, then go on, what have you got? Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You intended "a textbook case" as a figure of speech, not as a WP:V reference. There is no textbook, so your claim is unreferenced.  To the extent you are claiming yourself as an authority, this is the appeal to authority fallacy.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Unscintillating: Per WP:NPASR, "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator ( or few in the case of AfDs ), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:"....."closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR)". (Underline emphasis mine). WP:NPASR is the "textbook" in my "textbook case" metaphor. My close of the previous discussion was quite reasonable. I feel that the speedy renomination of the article is warranted in this case per the previous close I performed relative to the lack of input at the previous discussion. If you want the article retained, please consider providing guideline-based rationales that qualify the subject's notability, such as independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Thanks. NorthAmerica1000 05:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any reason why a renomination couldn't have waited the conventional two months. I also see a procedural conflict here if the 1st AfD closing is overturned by the closer, an administrator, or taken to DRV. What happens to the current discussion?  Any argument on the merits is now confounded by the 2nd AfD. Opining that I work on the nomination's agenda is off topic and IMO dismissive.  In the context it is also supporting the nomination viewpoint that the AfD community did an inadequate job in the first AfD, which IMO is not support for building an encyclopedia. The comment to save the article hearkens back to the WP:ARS viewpoint that nominations create rescue opportunities.  Articles are not born needing to be saved, because in general as per WP:AGF, we assume that they meet our guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The logic is pretty simple that if the topic at the 1st AfD needed more discussion, you could have relisted it, which you did not do, and IMO for good reason.  These reasons are discussed at WP:RELIST.  WP:NOQUORUM also provides for a No Consensus closure without WP:NPASR, which I hope is a point that you will now consider.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - it seems like the abstract discussion above has run its course, so hopefully we can get back on track and discuss relevant issues, like why this article should (or should not) be deleted. To that end, allow me to address the point raised by Rhododendrites.
 * In evaluating the subject's notability, it's natural to turn to WP:AUTHOR. I think it's pretty clear the subject fails to meet points 1, 2, 3 and 4 a, b and d; I certainly see no indication to the contrary. As for 4 c ("has won significant critical attention"), I think she fails that too. We have here a mention of one of her books, although only one sentence in that brief paragraph directly relates to the book. And here, in a source that is at best marginally reliable, we have another brief review. And that's it. By no impartial standard can this be considered "significant critical attention".
 * (If you'd like to see what "significant critical attention" means in the Romanian context, have a look at the reviews for Ioan T. Morar's Negru şi Roşu, here and here and here and here and here and here and here. That is significant critical attention, not what Avram managed to garner.)
 * Moreover, the subject utterly fails WP:BASIC: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In spite of diligently searching, I, a Romanian speaker, have managed to unearth no quotable sources about the subject.
 * I understand that Avram seems notable, a perception perhaps augmented by the similar articles foisted onto fr.wiki, es.wiki, it.wiki and sv.wiki by the single-purpose account who spammed this project too with an article about her. I just hope I've shown why, in fact, she isn't. - Biruitorul Talk 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you decline to withdraw your renomination for two months? Why is that?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, you're trolling. I'm going to ignore you as long as you troll, and so should everyone else. Of course, if you have a constructive comment to contribute on the question of Arina Avram's notability, I will be glad to engage you in dialogue. - Biruitorul Talk 18:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced by the strength of your argument that there is a reason that this discussion cannot be postponed two months. Unscintillating (talk) 19:07, 1 November 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 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

 You've not responded to my comment of 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC). One of the points there was WP:RELIST, which says, "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended". This topic has been at AfD since October 5. Why did you relist? Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

JTdale and Rhododendrites, could I perhaps prevail upon you both to register a clear vote, whatever it may be? I believe I have set out a fairly tight case for deletion, and that you should take this into account. I will also note that in the month this has spent at AfD, only the feeblest objections to deletion have been made, and certainly no convincing indication of notability has emerged. Finally, if you do both take part, this discussion will close and we won't have to put up with Unscintillating's trolling anymore. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, I didn't receive a notification for the ping above. The above was the first relisting for this discussion. The previous discussion was closed after two relistings as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, which User:Biruitorul subsequently performed. NorthAmerica1000 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The nominator's extensive justifications on this page and the original AFD provide a compelling argument that this should be deleted on general notability grounds, not to mention the evidence that the article is promotional in nature. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 05:52, 16 November 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.