Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denisa Legac (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   keep. Consensus for keep has been established twice within 30 days. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Denisa Legac
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable expert, with STILL not the slightest shred of evidence that her 'expertise' isn't entirely self-styled. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, why did you fail to mention this in the previous AfD you started, that had been relisted twice, and instead are insisting on wasting everyone's time again? Secondly, all the claims in the article are sourced - the article does not actually say she is an expert in a manner that could reasonably lead you to denigrate it; it states her profession and her general notability. In fact, your behavior here could very well be a violation of WP:BLP. (Speedy keep.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The validity of her expertise is utterly irrelevant when determining whether she satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria. Is this yet another in an endless series of cases where our selective use of the word 'notability' leads to misunderstanding? Aren't we getting tired of addressing that ambiguity? The definition of 'notable' means "worthy of notice", not "has been noticed". Maybe we should be using a word like "Conspicuous"? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:01, 24 August 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.