Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Tric


 * 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. v/r - TP 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Eduard Tric

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Many mistakes corrected - Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity - notability not satisfied Genium (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep i re-checked sources, including books and scholar http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Eduard+Tric%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Eduard+Tric%22  and wikipedia policies , and found it compliant . Deleting it after so much discussion and work will discourage the volunteer that i   am to further contribute , this was my first full note.  comment added by Jurnalist (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One uncitable hit on Google Books and two uncitable hits on Google Scholar do not provide evidence of notability. You need to say precisely why you think the subject meets the relevant policies (WP:PROF and WP:BIO), particularly as I've shown, exhaustively, why the article at present fails to meet those. And finally, "keep this article or I'll leave Wikipedia" also has no bearing on the subject's notability. - Biruitorul Talk 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As French, I can say that trying to link Mister Tric to the French HADOPI law or to the Mécénat Global project is really irrelevant (cf here and here - And he was not involved in the the book that the free software community wrote together about Hadopi, and his opinion, as the mine, is not a reference in France on this point). Next, what about EuropePKI? It seems this is a vaporware and this seems an instance of how to spend public money for nothing. Software is intended to be used, and this is not the case here, at least to my knowledge. Anyway, there isn't here the necessary notability needed to justify an article. According to Loïc Dachary, M. Tric never wrote any free software (PDF), but but the first version of this article gave the feeling that Tric was a free software developer. I can't understand this need to lie in the aim to have his name on WP. Finally, I cannot read any Romanian, so I found an information that Ion Vaciu is the president of the Internet Society Romania... Sorry for my bad english :) - (Genium (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
 * M. Tric seemed to be just a student, not a co-worker: "Christian Fluhr"+"Eduard Tric" (Genium (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC))


 * Delete Fails GNG and NPOV, no RS, clear examples of PUFF and probable COI - frankly it might be quicker to list the guidelines this article doesn't fail. Yunshui (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can read a bit of French, so will take a look. Hard to tell at first glance, since the article is clearly a cut-n-paste of the French one (which was also nominated for deletion on July 7). W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep alas I cannot read any Romanian, but after reworking many of the sources I did find a few that seem to qualify. I rewrote the article in English and should be a bit less promotional, but it still needs work. W Nowicki (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm afraid I don't see sources that would give him a WP:PROF or WP:BIO pass.
 * This, this, this, this, this (a newsgroup post, I might add), this and this mention Tric not at all.
 * This is an attendee list for a conference, hardly evidence of notability.
 * This spends a few lines saying what he said at a conference: again, delivering remarks at a conference is not evidence of academic notability.
 * This makes passing mention of him, to the effect that he opened an ISOC chapter. It's not an independent source, being an ISOC newsletter, and it seems doubtful that "ISOC chapter founder" adds any notability. Certainly, no mention of the fact is made in third-party sources.
 * This is also from ISOC, mentioning a project he headed. Interesting, but receiving a grant and undertaking a project is thoroughly routine.
 * This is a slide show of a presentation he gave at a conference. I fail to see how that either validates a claim of notability or is usable in the article.
 * This, for one, is a baccalaureate thesis, and thus unusable (we only accept doctoral theses as reliable sources). For another, it makes the barest passing mention of him.
 * This mentions his involvement in an EU-funded project. The problem is, it's on the funder's website, and so not independent. It doesn't advance a claim to notability.
 * This and this apparently confirm that he attended yet another conference. I fail to see the contextual relevance.
 * There are also two YouTube videos. For one, this encyclopedia relies on published written works. For another, WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to them. And for another, they show him speaking at a conference, again not evidence of notability.
 * Note too the wretched Google Scholar results.
 * Tric has an active career in his field, but that's different from having a notable one, which is a rather higher standard. If we keep, it should specifically be shown which sources validate a claim of notability under WP:PROF. That has not happened. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update - more links have been added, but no evidence of notability.
 * This (a PowerPoint slide!), this, this, this and this (a press release!) make no mention of Tric.
 * This is the home page of his consulting firm, and gives his biography; can we say "non-independent source"?
 * This is a press release briefly quoting Tric about one of his ventures; I'm afraid this too isn't relevant in terms of encyclopedic coverage.
 * Notability, as manifested in "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", remains conspicuously absent. - Biruitorul Talk 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. His research output is clearly below the bar for WP:PROF so I think we need to ask instead whether he passes the bar of WP:GNG for his software engineering activities. But although the article documents a lot of different things he's done, I can't find good third-party sources (such as newspaper and magazine articles, awards, keynote speeches, etc) that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (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.