Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brînduşa Armanca


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (converse)  11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brînduşa Armanca

 * – ( View AfD View log )

What this individual has had is known as a career - a not uninteresting one, but a path shared by millions nonetheless. Nothing particularly sets her apart. Also, as far as I could tell, she headed not the European Union National Institutes for Culture (not that that would matter terribly) but its Budapest office, an even lower claim to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Her law suit(s) against TVR and the surrounding controversy and political implications (cited to the US State Department and IREX) with the other stuff seem to me sufficient for general notability.  (Msrasnw (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep While the entry itself does not give adequate clue as to the subject's standing, and her bureaucratic position may not on its own validate the article, she is perhaps notable enough as an author and public figure. Consider this, this, this, this, this (the bio at the end, mainly), this, this, this, this (165-6) or this. Leaving out the puff pieces and the Greater Romania Party attack pages, this might constitute significant coverage. Dahn (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2012 (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.