Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gheorghe Nistoreanu


 * 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. There's a numeric split (not that that's particularly relevant) here in terms of the !votes (with the issue under dispute being notability), but those arguing for deletion go into much greater detail as to why they think the few mentions of Nistoreanu in Romanian-language sources do not send him over the WP:GNG bar, and those arguments were not really addressed by those who support keeping the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gheorghe Nistoreanu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Wrote a textbook that's in under 10 libraries worldwide, has some citations for it on Google Scholar, but overall, no indication of significant impact or multiple sources about him. Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Though I'm sure I want to know more about his "Journatilstic Activity" (sounds fascinating), I'm pretty sure this article and its subject don't pass either PROF or GNG (meaning that he is not really notable in this field nor notable for something outside it). As a side note, the use of enwiki as a "submitting my resume" tool by various Romanians has peaked in these past months. Dahn (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Books have only a handful of cites. On this basis Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep I would have thought it obvious that Romanian language books about Romanian law  can by and large be expected to be found only in Romanian libraries--and   WorldCat does not include any Bulgarian libraries. Not finding them outside the country is irrelevant. Google Books/Scholar is also irrelevant, as it includes essentially no Romanian sources--a negative result there is only relevant for material expected to be published in the places it covers. If he wrote what appears to be the standard textbook of his country's criminal law, I note that even in WorldCat, a search for Criminal law--Romania shows that he is the most prolific author. -- expand author listing at the left.    DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to base your argument on the notion that he wrote "the standard textbook of his country's criminal law". Well, that seems a rather sketchy claim. First, searching for "manual drept penal" ("penal law textbook") yields far more results for Costică Bulai's textbook. Second, looking at a 2008-09 syllabus for a University of Craiova Law faculty course called "Penal Law" (p. 4, 8), we find recommended readings by Tănăsescu, Bulai and Niculeanu. Not Nistoreanu. Do you stand by that claim? - Biruitorul Talk 06:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, while we, Bulgarians, are very fond of our only library in Budapest, when we travel to our capital Prague, we prefer also to check our new library in Lubljana, which we, Croatians, find more appealing than the one in Budapest, because it contains more than 3 books, including more than two books about Slovak law. :) Thank you, DGG, for mixing Romanians with Bulgarians. Please send greetings to Bill Clinton, who when on official visit in Bucharest has declared in front of 50,000 people "I enjoy being here with you in Budapest!" Dc76\talk 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete although I am sure he was a nice, decent, and good person, and I appreciate the homage to Nistoreanu by the editor. That notability is a problem has been mentioned already in the lead of the article: "Professor Gheorghe Nistoreanu was a noteworthy personality of the Romanian academic law education, cultured, European range encyclopedic spirit." I.e. he is notable because he was ... a noteworthy personality. It is not good when articles make clear that they are personal homages, that actually does a dis-service: "Educational and disciples creator (former PhD conductor at Alexandru Ioan Cuza Police Academy in Bucharest, Romania)." I propose to delete, b/c I sure the man would have preferred no article than a cheep article. Civasy, the gesture is appreciated and commendable, but the specific idea is somewhat improper. I hope you understand. Dc76\talk 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable jurist, wrote a major textbook. The article can be cleaned up. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I've done some basic formatting and cleanup. If he submitted his own resume, he must be the first undead Romanian since Vlad the Impaler. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And how exactly do you know he's notable, or that his textbook is "major"? Because it's in a few libraries? You'd think, for instance, since he just died this summer, some newspapers would have mentioned his death, or quoted him on prior occasions. Let's see: Jurnalul Naţional? No. Adevărul? No, just a declaration he made to the press 7 years ago. Evenimentul Zilei? No. Cotidianul? No. Ziua? No, just that declaration and a note on a book launching. Gândul? No. Gardianul? No. "Notable"? Not by the standard of being covered in the press, and not, as far as I can tell, for having made a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline...as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". You've shown no evidence his textbook is "major", you've shown no independent reliable sources attesting to his purported notability, while I have gone to some length to show that the major textbook in penal law in Romania is by Costică Bulai, not Gheorghe Nistoreanu. - Biruitorul Talk 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To Bearian: Hm, yes, he's dead. Make that "somebody submitting his obituary". Now, at which point do claims about the relevancy of one's work "as potentially attested by Romanian sources we can't see/can't understand" become frivolous when Romanian editors who bother to comment on such an issue consistently find no such sources? This argument keeps surfacing with keep votes in such debates, but it denies reality and by now claims esoteric knowledge. Dahn (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG (Ziarul de Iaşi, Ziua, Curierul National, Revista VIP), by his books, by the impact he has had in his field (, , and by his work being studied and written of by scholars. That no English sources are readily available, and that a Google search is not as rewarding as looking for entries for Melvin Belli, is one reason to hope the the folks from WP:CSB might lend a hand. Of course, the English article seems a transwikification of the one on this man in ro.Wikipedia (Google translation), as the same editor authored both. However, it does not seem that he was notified that his work on en.Wikipedia is being considered for deletion. His input might be useful. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's do some analysis of your findings, shall we? Curierul de Iaşi informs us that as of 2000, he occasionally drove up to Iaşi to teach courses: I hope we can dismiss that as trivia. The Ziua article, which I've previously dismissed, concerns a 2002 declaration of his calling for judicial reform: again, being quoted just once in a newspaper is not that big a deal, particularly considering that judicial reform is a perennial subject in the Romanian media. The Curierul Naţional article quotes a textbook he co-authored with three others regarding criminal investigations; that hardly constitutes "independent reliable sources" proving a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline", does it? Revista VIP (probably not a reliable source, I might add) quotes him about a book he reviewed, and did not write. So no, none of this actually amounts to "significant coverage" of the subject.
 * OK, so you found four of his books on Google Books. Great. As you may know, that doesn't bear on notability: we need "independent reliable sources" for demonstrating that. He could've written 400 books, but that still wouldn't constitute significant coverage of the subject.
 * You also found a snippet of an article he wrote but we can't read. Well, again, is that an "independent reliable source" showing a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline"? Of course not; to conclude that would be in breach of WP:PSTS.
 * You also found he wrote a two-page report on police ethics. Interesting, but can that be used to attest notability? No, unless secondary sources discuss its significance, which they do not.
 * Finally, you found that he's been cited a few times, mostly in Moldovan theses. OK, so? Sure, he wrote a textbook, there aren't a thousand textbooks on penal law in Romanian, I'm sure some Romanian students have used it over the years. But in no way do those citations bring us closer to showing "independent reliable sources" providing "significant coverage" of him.
 * And to top it off, you end by repeating the "systemic bias" canard. (And let me note together with Dahn that three Romanians, who have consistently sought to expand coverage of the country, have all voted that this be deleted after examining the issue and performing searches in Romanian; the "no English sources are readily available" bit doesn't apply to us.) Look: if Romania were Burkina Faso, you might have an argument (although even there, WP:BURDEN would still apply). But it's not. It has an active press that covers all manner of topics and has a heavy Internet presence. To supplement this, there are specialty magazines, university websites, professional organisations, etc. Nistoreanu isn't from the remote past either: he died this summer. People who actually are notable in Romania don't suffer from lack of Internet coverage. The problem in Nistoreanu's case is that that simply isn't there, no matter how much you may hope for "the folks from WP:CSB" to "lend a hand". You've scraped the barrel, found he sometimes commuted long distances, found he was once quoted in a newspaper, but found zero actual coverage of the "significant" variety. That's telling. - Biruitorul Talk 05:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We are in disagreement. Recognition that en.Wikipedia has a bias toward online and searchable English sources, is not a "canard".... it is a sad fact.  I do not think my good faith hope for input from the very Wikiproject trying to eleviate systemic bias should then itself be denigrated.  Sidenote: I have just posted a courtesy notice of this deletion discussion on the author's talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. Systemic bias, in the sense that our coverage of notable phenomena is skewed toward the Anglophone developed world, does exist. After all, Kongo-Wara War, Cuban Revolution of 1933, Bolivian Revolution of 1952, Wallachian Army are all still redlinks. However, when you have three Romanian speakers performing extensive searches in Romanian and coming up empty-handed on a newly-deceased subject who worked at a university in the national capital for years, then claiming "systemic bias" is responsible for the lack of coverage does reach the level of a canard (in the sense of "groundless belief"). It's also a bit odd being told by three people from outside Romania who is and isn't notable in our country - sure, we all have an equal voice here, but you'd think we'd have some idea, eh? And anyway, what exactly are you expecting the CSB people to dig up? Never mind that speculating on the possible existence of sources as an argument for keeping an article is a game WP:BURDEN doesn't exactly encourage us to play, but I rather doubt the participants there have any greater Google-searching capabilities than you.
 * Oh, and I see none of my substantive points were addressed. Quite telling. - Biruitorul Talk 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is quite telling is that you called my good faith comments repeating the "systemic bias" canard. You now clarify that such systemic bias does exist... so am I to understand then that you intended that my comments be considered a "French duck" rather than one of the less civil meanings for the word canard?  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said: "groundless belief", when it comes to ascribing to "systemic bias" the lack of meaningful coverage on a recently-deceased individual living in an EU member state with widespread Internet availability, a lively press (both journalistic and academic), and near-universal literacy. Sometimes invoking "systemic bias" is appropriate, but at times like these, it's a manifestation of a groundless belief, even if done in good faith (as you did). The failure to address my substantive refutations of the "sources" you adduced remains telling. - Biruitorul Talk 07:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To compliment what Biruitorul is saying, let me note the following: a large part of my contributions is dedicated to biographical articles on Romanian scholars. Of the ones I have contributed just recently (meaning these past days), there's Ion Negoiţescu and Zigu Ornea. Let those who enjoy lecturing about "systemic bias" and speculate about the hypothetical existence of sources where nobody has gone before have a look at what level of coverage (in printed and online media) a relatively obscure Romanian scholar will get. Let them consider using this as a potential benchmark about how "notable" a figure like Nistoreanu is. Dahn (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dahn for the courtesy shown by your response. Are you yourself currently in or near Bucharest and with access to Bucharest-local hard-copy news sources?  I have notified the editor who authored both the Romanian article on this man and the English one.  If he has access, such may be forthcoming.  This AfD has perhaps a week more to run, and there may other editors who have input.  Again, thank you for your courtesy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As Biruitorul pointed out, virtually all the hard-copy news sources have online versions, and he has done a very good job showing that Nistoreanu is virtually unmentioned in such. I have shown Negoiţescu and Ornea as examples that Romanian subjects are rather well covered in accessible sources, and that something below that level (which Nistorescu definitely is), may not be worth a mention at all - this, coupled with the fact that his biography is recent (and therefore not conceivably relegated to some unexplored corner of academic libraries, as you'd expect, say, from an 18th century bishop etc.), is good and reasonable indication that Nistoreanu is not notable enough even by Romanian standards. Let me emphasize that the mentions Nistoreanu gets in the sources cited above (including the ones you included) are either not encyclopedic, because they don't add anything relevant about the man other than he once existed, or not reliable. What's more, none of them lifts this article about the GNG or PROF requirements. Dahn (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2009 (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.