Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Liliana Popescu


 * 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 Speedy deleted due to copyright infringement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Elena Liliana Popescu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced BLP, tagged for lack of notability since 2008. The article reads like a CV and becomes highly evasive whenever it almost touches subjects that may prove notability - where she was published, by what literary critics was her work reviewed and commented, what exactly those prizes are worth in the literary world etc. - Andrei (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I didn't see any notable links that could help the biography bloom on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister  talk  04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Smacks of pure vanity page. No independent coverage given, just a large collection of works. But mere quantity is not sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Something odd here:
 * 1) As the article stands, there are clear grounds for deletion, not only as an unsourced BLP but as an apparent copyvio of the 'About the author' page from the subject's website.
 * 2) However, a look at Google Scholar results suggests that the subject could possibly pass ACADEMIC - as a mathematician. The identification may at first seem unlikely, but the article provides just enough information to make it very plausible (but far less information than would be needed to assert, let alone establish, notability as a mathematician).
 * 3) Finally, the (admittedly rather thin) Google News results do suggest something of an international reputation as either a poet or a translator, though probably not to the extent of demonstrating notability. Note that none of these results are in English, so Google News may not be giving complete coverage - and we may be missing something.
 * In brief - the subject may in fact be notable but if so, the current article does a very bad job of showing this. PWilkinson (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask at WT:MATH. Math notability is more tricky that in natural sciences. I don't think merely being a published mathematician, which seems to be her day job, is enough for WP:N. I agree about the COPYVIO though, I've tagged the article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:43, 20 August 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.