Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentina Mosora (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   no consensus. Rather than outright "keep", as two "keeps" are qualified as weak and the last opinion does not really contain an independent argument for keeping.  Sandstein  20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Florentina Mosora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Okay, so this article has not been improved in two years. The previous discussion was to keep it on the basis that she once won a Belgian award and starred in a couple of films - the first is the only reasonable documented part of the article; the second is irrelevant, as only trivial sources attest this, and the films themselves are marginally notable. The creator of the article probably has some connection to the subject: s/he persistently introduced info that traces to no public source - see for instance here and here. There is no ample coverage of this person, the sources that are borderline WP:RS make only very brief mentions of her, and some of the sources on which this article was based when reduced from much puffier versions are hopeless deadlinks. Dahn (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't have much to add, except to say that she fails on both counts, WP:ENT and WP:PROF:
 * There's no evidence, even from the paltry sources given, that she had "significant roles in multiple notable films", let alone a "large fan base" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". Romanian cinema itself was not especially significant while she acted, and for all we know, what roles she had may have been little more than bit parts. There's simply no indication of significance from the evidence we have.
 * Of the WP:PROF criteria, I'd say #3-9 aren't even in play. For criterion 1, I'd say no significant impact &mdash; not only are reliable sources attesting that missing, her Google scholar results are rather low, and her h-number is just 7 . Objective evidence of a significant impact is missing. For criterion 2, I'd say the "Prix Agathon de Potter" doesn't count as a "highly prestigious academic award" because the Belgian Royal Academy hands out 115 prizes. There's simply no indication that all winners of all these prizes should necessarily be considered notable. Perhaps those of Belgium's highest scientific honor, the |336 InBev-Baillet Latour Prize, but not all of them. - Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See further down for discussion on the subject's h-number. - Biruitorul Talk 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Little note: By way of courtesy I have dropped a little note on the creator of this article's talk page, User talk:Bci2‎, to let them be aware of this Afd and allow them a chance to address any of the concerns raised here. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Weak keep. The paucity of online sources doesn't much bother me, because that's not where I would expect to find the sources for this timeframe. She certainly starred in a feature movie and she certainly won an academic prize given by the Belgian royal academy only every three years, to one scientist in each of seven disciplines, since 1919 (see here for info on a more recent offering of the same prize); that makes a plausible case for WP:PROF. Both cases are marginal but I think the fact that she attained some level of notability in such widely differing areas adds interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree with David. There's not much, but what we have is sourced. In addition, this was all pre-Internet, so online sources may be expected to be a bit sparse. Perhaps this will always stay a short article, but I have no problem with that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourced to what? If I want to source something about a Romanian film from the 1960s, I will find the relevant sources quite quickly. They're in festivals, they're discussed, they're constantly on show - the notable ones, that is. Sure, the films are pre-internet, but the very fact that there's surviving references to them today is a clue as to their relevancy. Try finding something legitimate on Mosora's film career, anywhere - whereas pretty minor film actors from the 1960s are amply mentioned to this day. Apparently, someone was able to once retrieve a mention of her name and acting career in a university journal article that deals with sports in early Romanian cinema - the link, however, is dead. I won't discuss imdb and citiwf as legitimate sources - one can just as well write an entry there and use it as "an outside source" for wikipedia. And even those two don't say virtually anything about Mosora. Now, to the scientific career: try looking over the secondary sources used. One is a deadlink to a search in a database! One is a primary source, i. e. an article she wrote! Ditto for this one! This one is a google books snippet saying that she won the Agathon de Potter award; this one is the same source, used for the same thing. This one lists her as one of the tens of researchers who organized a colloquium. And these are all, abolutely all the sources used in the article. (Also, I do believe that the point and use of google books, scholar etc. is to give us a clue as to what existed in that peculiar "pre-internet era"; well, there it is, all of it.) Dahn (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive is our friend; unsurprisingly, the mention Mosora receives in the article on sport in Romanian cinema is quite passing indeed. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article seems to me a useful addition to the encyclopedia and even an example of the kind thing that makes wikipedia so nice. Notability via her role in the feature films and academically via her reciept of the awards seems achieved. My only worries were verifiability and the possibility of a very elaborate hoax but the sources, although scanty, seem sufficient to verify the facts needed (and those prosposing deletion have not questioned the facts only the notability - so I guess no-one is harbouring such doubts). I guess more could be found via archival searches in the real world (but it is not so nice out there). Most convincing to me was actually watching a bit of the feature film Dragoste la zero grade (on Youtube) where she seems to clearly share the staring caption and plays a leading role with Iurie Darie in a feature film released by Studioul Cinematografic București.  I am not sure that we should easily dismiss Romanian film stars from the past. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, if the film is on youtube, I guess that must mean it's important... As for the facts: yes, the article's accuracy has been repeatedly question, which is why it was stubbed down from earlier versions, after it was acknowledged that these made egregious claims from various creatively interpreted sources. The article as it now is stands as a summery of basically everything that is publicly known about Mosora, and even it is not properly sourced - as I have shown, it is based on the interpretation of primary sources and simply non-reliable sources. A huge effort was made to preserve someone's vanity cruftpage, and we still have no possibility to detect relevancy as established by third-party sources. Other than me and you watching some films on youtube, that is... Dahn (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No - I think you may be wrong in your guess that the existence of such a film on youtube means it's important - but it may I think be useful to see for oneself that the film exists and see that she stared in it, and who she acted with and that it was made by a noted film company. I am also not sure about how useful it is but a quick look for sources does yield the Marquis Who's Who entry which lists our Florentina Mosora-Stan as a physics professor, who, for her education, took a Bachelor in Biological Sci. 1961, and a Bachelor in Physical Sci. 1967 from the University Bucharest. In 1971 she took her PhD in Biophysics, University Bucharest, Romania, 1971. For her career it lists a Research fellow post at the University Bucharest, 1967-71 - then a series of posts at the University Liege culminating in Professor, Institute Physics, (1988—   ) Lecturer, Institute Physics, (1979-88) Head research fellow, Institute Physics, (1975-79) Maitre de conferences (1974-75), Research fellow (1971-74). It also lists her religion as Roman Catholic which is I think different from the Romanian Orthodox listed earlier in the article.  Is this useful info. from a valuable source or is Marquis Who's Who not respected anymore -is it now (was it then) a vanity publication?  (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
 * It's borderline more than anything - self-submitted bios that, if Marquis' own account is to be trusted, afterward get churned out through some editorial process. There apparently are credible sources out there who rate Marquis as no more than vanity press. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Contrary to my earlier stance, I'm now convinced she had important roles in at least two of the three films she appeared in, but that doesn't automatically translate into WP:ENT's demand for "significant roles in multiple notable films" (emphasis mine). By all means let's have articles on Romanian stars of the 1960s - Grigore Vasiliu Birlic, Liviu Ciulei, Victor Rebengiuc, etc, etc, but let's first make sure they're actually stars. And I'm still unconvinced that winning one of the 115 awards handed out by the Belgian Royal Academy necessarily makes one notable, particularly given the paucity of independent references to that prize. - Biruitorul Talk 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * H-index query: When I do a H-index search using google scholar I seem to get a H-index of 17. I searched under F Mosora and the papers seem to be hers. A H-index of 17 is clearly substantially higher than the 7 reported above and well within the scope that we have accepted in the past as enabling a pass of WP:Prof. Perhaps someone else could check this as I can easily make mistakes in such matters.(Msrasnw (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I'd searched for her full name; "F Mosora" does indeed yield an h-index of 17. - Biruitorul Talk 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: First AfD seems to have closed as "meets WP:PROF as pointed out."--Milowent • hasspoken 14:33, 21 March 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.