Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florin Sandu (lawyer)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Florin Sandu (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It fails WP:Notability (person), as there are little reputable secondary sources demonstrating his notability. The creator of the article notes on the talk page that the subject is "a friend", and that he or she is "writing this article to him". Ollieinc ( talk ) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  NickGibson3900  Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  NickGibson3900  Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  NickGibson3900  Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  NickGibson3900  Talk 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  NickGibson3900  Talk 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. This gentleman appears to be accomplished, but I'm not sure how to evaluate the various positions. I was intrigued by the "Secretary of State" title (e.g. ), however, there appear to 15 ministries each with many secretaries of states who are subordinate. - Location (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The following passage asserts Sandu was "General Inspector of Romanian Police" -- that sounds like he meets the criteria for WP:Politician, as it is a national office. If he was appointed a Brigadier General then he meets the criteria for WP:GENERAL.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * On January 2001 Colonel Sandu was appointed General Inspector of Romanian Police, function which will hold until November 2003. Following this appointment, he was promoted to brigadier general which later turned in the function of Principal Questor.
 * On January 2001 Colonel Sandu was appointed General Inspector of Romanian Police, function which will hold until November 2003. Following this appointment, he was promoted to brigadier general which later turned in the function of Principal Questor.


 * }
 * Also found mention as "Chief of Police" in a US State Department report: . - Location (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * About a decade ago I read that an incoming US President has about 3,000 political appointments he or she makes, starting the the Departmental Secretaries that sit in the Cabinet, then Secretaries, like Secretary of the Navy, that are not at the Cabinet level, Directors of Agencies like NASA, NOAA, NPS, EPA, FBI. Some contributors wrongly assert that WP:Politician only applies to elected offices, but I think that is a mistake.  I think it applies to all "office holders", including appointees.  I don't care if this Romanian title is translated into English as "Chief of the National Police", "Inspector General of the National Police", "Director of the National Police".  He was clearly an "office holder".  He was clearly a senior office holder, at the National level.  So he clearly qualified for wikipedia notability under the special purpose notability guideline WP:Politician.  Note, this does not apply just to American office holders.  Translation can be odd, and counter-intuitive, so I encourage you not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.
 * Please also bear in mind the long-standing precedent to consider all Generals and Admirals as notable. The military wikiprojects guidelines are not quite a special purpose notability guideline.  But they might as well be, because their guidelines are routinely treated as if they were one of the special purpose notability guidelines.  The military wikiproject members have been extremely aggressive that military officers at the Colonel or Naval Captain level are not automatically notable, but that officers at the flag level, that is Brigadier Generals and Commodores are automatically notable.  And, apparently, Sandu was promoted to Brigadier General -- so automatically notable under that criteria as well.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but the wording of WP:POLITICIAN could not be clearer; it applies to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Not civil servants, politicians. That means executives and legislators, period. And no one claimed ambiguity about what his role was, just that this role in fact did not automatically entitle him to an article. Finally, as I pointed out, he was not a general in the military, but in the police. - Biruitorul Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You claimed some kind of distinction under which police generals didn't count as generals, but, when asked to explain this distinction between army generals, who count as generals, and police generals who don't count as generals, you were completely silent.
 * If Sandu didn't rise through the ranks of the National Police, if, instead, politicians cherry-picked him from outside the National Police, and parachuted him to this national office, then he was a political appointee -- i.e. a politician. Geo Swan (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible the Romanian police has inflated ranks where the rank of general means something quite different from in the military and is commonplace, but I doubt it, and unless that's the case his rank is one more thing that confers notability. &mdash;innotata 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This man has a number of accomplishments, and with better references he should have the inline citations to show notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - let me start by clearing up a few points.
 * As Location notes, each Romanian ministry has at least a couple of state secretaries, and while a few of them rise to prominence in the public eye, most are senior civil servants with no particular claim to notability.
 * Regarding Geo Swan's observation, I'll note a couple of things. First, until 2002 (and keep in mind, Sandu was appointed in 2001), the Romanian Police had a military structure, meaning its employees had military rank, including that of general. So he was a police general, not an army general, to which WP:SOLDIER refers (at least I would infer that). In any case, military rank alone cannot substitute for coverage in reliable sources.
 * Second, WP:POLITICIAN refers to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Sandu is a civil servant, an agency executive, not a politician. And, not to raise a WP:WAX argument, but most heads of national police agencies actually don't have articles on Wikipedia, although whether they should have them is, I suppose, a separate question.
 * Having made these points, I don't think Sandu quite merits a "keep" vote based on an inherent-notability argument stemming from his positions. And in terms of sources: well, the article is glaringly lacking in those.
 * I more or less tend toward a delete (or perhaps userfy) on this one, unless the article creator can come up with some sources, in which case I might reconsider. - Biruitorul Talk 01:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain what a "Police General" is. Perhaps, in recent centuries, most Generals and Admirals in Western countries are careerists, who rose step by step through each rank in the military hierarchy.  This isn't true for all officers today, and certainly wasn't true for most of human history.  For instance, at the time George Washington became a junior officer in a UK militia, officers almost always bought their army commissions.  That brief militia experience in one of the UK's wars was all the genuine military experience he had before he became the General in charge of the Continental Congress's Army.  How many of the officers in the Continental Congress's Navy had been career naval officers -- even briefly?
 * You say the Romanian Police had a military structure until 2002? The passage I quoted said he was promoted to Brigadier General in 2003.
 * JAG officers in the US military are still considered officers, aren't they? Some JAG officers were already officers, or enlisted guys or gals, who were sent to law school, or studied law at night school -- and joined the JAG corps when the got their law degree.  Others however were lawyers, who volunteered, and were directly commissioned.  I suggest this erodes your distinction between "police generals" and "army generals".
 * Sorry, I think the characterization of all appointees as "civil servants" is wildly unrealistic. Career civil servants, who join some civilian agency right out of finishing college, and or shortly after finishing college, take an entry level position, and then slowly work their way up from entry level to direct their agencies -- are they "civil servants" or "politicians"?  I'll return to this later.
 * How much do you know of the careers of J. Edgar Hoover and Hyman Rickover? Both these gentlemen held their appointment for decades past the age when they would have been forced to retire.  How?  They were owed political favors by members of Congress who, once a year would pass bills, exempting them from the obligation to retire.  Its proof, so far as I am concerned, that the holders of offices like Director of the FBI are politicians.
 * You realize that in Commonwealth countries the Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors are appointees?
 * The individuals in the UK House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are all appointees.
 * Remember, in the US context, a surprising number of the senior appointments that are the POTUS's to appoint, have to be approved by Congress. Proof, I suggest, that those appointed are politicians.
 * In totalitarian countries, and traditional monarchies, all, or almost all, senior post are appointed.
 * Yes, sometimes those appointed to head agencies are individuals who rose through the ranks of their agencies. But, it would be a mistake to consider those individuals to be mere "civil servants".  In general the guy or gal who starts at an entry level job, may start as a mere "civil servant", but as they rise in their agency, as they come closer to the level where the politicians who appoint the directors are -- when the directors aren't outsiders -- they have to learn to be politicians.  I suggest, in the US context, it is rare for someone from within to be appointed director, if they hadn't already become politicized.  Very rarely a careerist will be appointed who doesn't know how to schmooze with the other politicians.  These individuals terms are completely ineffective, and they are likely to have their term end early or to resign, early.
 * Consider Eric Shinseki, who was Chief of Staff of the Army for the final two years of the Clinton administration and the first two years of Bush 43's administration. He had tried to totally reorganize the army, to prepare it for post-cold-war conflicts.  Bush and his advisors didn't like Shenseki.  The appointment is a four year appointment.  But, just over two years into his term they announced his replacement.  Unprecedented, the choice of replacement usually being made shortly before the appointment.  I felt sorry for him, because his plans seemed wise, and he was turned into a lame duck.  Chief of Staff is always the last appointment in an officer's career.  But, Shenseki's political career wasn't over, as Obama appointed him Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
 * The officers on the Joint Chiefs regularly testify before various Congressional committees. So many of their duties are political -- like lobbying for funding, participating in choosing contractors.  Look at George Marshall, who went from the JCS to Secretary of State.
 * IMO the shortcut WP:POLITICIAN was poorly chosen. Judges don't fit under the term "politician".  IMO the shortcut politician should be deprecated, in favor of something like "WP:OFFICEHOLDERS".  Geo Swan (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat: some police agencies have a military structure, with all their personnel given military-type ranks, from private to general. This was the case with the Romanian Police until 2002 - a date you can confirm, among other places, here, in the Interior Ministry's magazine. The passage you quoted, given that it's unsourced, is worthless: I do hope you realize, just short of a decade into your Wikipedia career, that content needs to be verified in order to be considered legitimate. (And in any event, the passage says he was made a general "following his appointment", which happened in January 2001.)
 * I said, and I think this is a common understanding, that WP:POLITICIAN refers to "executives and legislators". I did not say "elected officials", I realize that appointed legislators exist, so kindly refrain from lecturing me on that point. And I'm sorry, but no matter how much you push this point, you won't convince me that the US Ambassador to Bangladesh is a "politician" simply because he's subject to (unanimous) Senate confirmation. Of what party is he a member? What elected office has he held? What speeches has he given, rallies attended, PACs established, voters interacted with? That's how politics happens in America, and although the man is probably notable by virtue of being a US Ambassador, he's not a politician just because the Constitution happens to require Senate confirmation for him.
 * You are correct to say that many apparently non-political posts do require a fair amount of politicking - let's also mention General Eisenhower. But a) that doesn't make them politicians in the normal sense and b) people like, say, Hoover have had multiple books written about them. Sandu barely has a newspaper article mentioning him. At some point, it would be wise to come to terms with the lack of sources for this BLP and somehow address that. - Biruitorul Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You acknowledge that WP:Politician applies to executives and legislators. Political appointees, who are appointed to be the directors of Federal agencies are executives.
 * With regard to ambassadors, there already is a special purpose notability guideline for them -- WP:DIPLOMAT. You directed us to the biography for a particular ambassador to Pakistan.  Let me instead guide you to the articles on the USA's most recent Ambassadors to Canada.
 * Bruce Heyman, Wall Street tycoon and lobbyist;
 * David Jacobson, Obama associate and donor;
 * David Wilkins, loyal Republican who lost an election;
 * Paul Cellucci, loyal Republican who lost an election;
 * Gordon Giffin, formerly a senior aide to Senator Sam Nunn
 * James Blanchard, loyal Democrat who lost an election;
 * So far as I am concerned the former ambassadors parachuted in to be Ambassador to Canada who were lobbyists or political donors should also be considered politicians. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The given sources don't seem enough to meet GNG, but I don't know about whether his papers are enough to show notability. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I do question the judo claims (which were not sourced to the subject) because there is a Florin Sandu who's a judoka, but we can see here  that it's a different person since he was 3rd in the national under 20 heavyweight competition in 2005 when the subject of this article would have been 55 years old.  Finding sources was difficult because most of them refer to the footballer. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I included this on the Military sorting because he was appointed a Brigadier General, and I remember those on the military wikiproject argue that Generals are inherently notable. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - while we debate whether an agency head is necessarily notable, I'd like to stress a more basic flaw with this article: it fails WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
 * Such sources are entirely absent from the article, and until they are adduced, we cannot take any of its claims at face value. As it happens, I did find one reliable source concerning Sandu: an article mentioning the fact that he's now an attorney, and that one of his clients is a Gypsy mafia boss. Interesting, to be sure, but that doesn't do very much in terms of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources".
 * So I ask again: where are the sources? Until that rather crucial question is answered, this cannot really be considered a valid article, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. - Biruitorul Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have the WP:GNG, and we recognize that there are special cases, for which we have about a dozen special notability guideline. Paper encyclopedia cover political office holders at the National level even if they had absolutely zero accomplishments of note.  Encyclopedias, both paper, and wiki, do this for comprehensiveness.  If you chose to have a gap for the one office holder who accomplished nothing it looks to the reader like the information about that office holder is being censored. It is my interpretation that the special notability guidelines over-ride and supercede the GNG in the relatively rare case they apply.  If Sandu fulfills the criteria of one or two special notability guideline why would it be relevant if he doesn't fulfill the criteria of the GNG?
 * With regard to police forces that use military rank, follow military discipline, and receive military training, those police forces are military forces, or at least, paramilitary forces. Canada has only one national police force, the RCMP.  The RCMP was founded as the North West Mounted Police, and its military roots are clear to anyone.  It was founded in reaction to the Northwest Rebellion, and its troopers were taught to fight like mounted cavalry.  Canada contribution to the Boer War was a contingent of RCMP.  They were not employed as military police, they were employed as long distance cavalry scouts.
 * If a police officer holds a military style rank I don't know why we wouldn't consider that WP:SOLDIER applies to him or her. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he was inspector-general of police for a national police force then he is quite clearly notable. A police general is as notable as an army general; any attempt to claim otherwise is utterly illogical. Let's suggest that the articles on directors of the FBI (a much smaller agency) should be deleted and see the response! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The FBI isn't a national police force, not in the way the Romanian Police is (or the Police national, or the Policía Nacional, or the Polizia di Stato). And a fairly major difference between FBI directors and Sandu is that there are copious references about the latter, but barely anything about the former. However, as it seems you aren't concerned with reliable sources, and are content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value, I suppose that argument doesn't hold water with you. - Biruitorul Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The FBI is a national law enforcement agency in exactly the same way that the Romanian Police is. It is not a police force (and I didn't say it was), but both of them are most certainly law enforcement agencies. It is also considerably smaller, as I said. Are you saying the FBI is more important than the Romanian Police or are you just trying to split hairs? I really do suggest you avoid that, particularly concerning law enforcement with someone who knows about law enforcement. Do you know why there's more about the directors of the FBI? Because the USA dumps everything on the internet; most countries don't. That doesn't mean Americans in senior government positions are any more notable. Since you don't know me, your last sentence is patronising and beneath contempt. Keep it civil. Am I "content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value"? No. But a quick internet search will confirm that Sandu was indeed head of the Romanian Police (e.g. ). That means he's clearly notable enough for an article. The quality of the article is irrelevant to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Necrothesp.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Necrothesp, clearly notable as a head of a national police force, and at least that can be established by reliable sources. &mdash;innotata 07:36, 8 October 2014 (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.