Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Institute of Romania


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

European Institute of Romania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the fancy name, there appears to be no evidence this entity is notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. Right now, we have three sources: their own website, their bylaws (hosted on their website) and the decree that created them. Obviously, we're a long way off from "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul Talk 13:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I note the article creator has added several more links, but none of these are especially convincing. We have passing mention (a cabinet minister gave a speech at a venue jointly hosted by the institute), a report on a study about the minimum wage (the study author happens to work at the institute), passing mention (some guy gave a speech at the institute), a link to a paper on their site and passing mention about another conference.
 * What is still glaringly lacking are sources about the institute, as opposed to routine, trivial mention of its activities. - Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This public agency was created by Decree of the Government of Romania in 1998. Its budget is also approved by the the Parliament of Romania as part of the national budget. References to both the decree creating the institute and the law approving its budget have been added. Several references to its activities published by the Romanian National Press Agency (AGERPRES) have also been added. References from international sources in Poland and Moldova have also been added. The original criticism was that the references to its nature and mission were from its own website, but they were in fact legal texts approved either by the Romanian Government or the Romanian Parliament and published in the official journal. Now the reference to these legal texts is direct to the Legislative Portal sponsored by the European Union and the Romanian government.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I suggest you contemplate the implications of the general notability standard: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that something is created by decree or funded from a public budget does nothing to advance a case of notability. Neither do the trivial mentions I've analyzed above rise to a level of "significant coverage". - Biruitorul Talk 13:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Wiki15071 has misunderstood the points about notability in several ways, including the following. (1) There may be a case for changing the notability guidelines so that factors such as an organisation's budget being approved by a parliament contribute to notability, but at present that is not so. (And in any case, such a blanket criterion, without restrictions, would make no sense, as presumably we could then have articles about the group of people employed to clean the floor in a parliament building.) (2) Texts published by a government about an organisation set up by that government are no more independent sources than is the web site of the organisation itself. (3) Wiki15071 refers to "references from international sources in Poland and Moldova", but the nature of those sources can be illustrated by the one at the web site "Polish Aid", which merely tells us The European Institute of Romania has published on its website an article on the Polish system of development cooperation. The text was drafted in reference to the Polish participation in the conference on the Romanian model of development cooperation in Sibiu in July 2013. It contains information about the policy areas, implementation and financing of the Polish development cooperation program "Polish aid." That is not substantial coverage of The European Institute of Romania. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. My checks and searches have confirmed what Biruitorul has said: this institute does not seem to have attracted any substantial coverage anywhere other than in sources connected to the institute. Brief mentions are not enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not convinced that the institute is notable enough. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2017 (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.