Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu


 * 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 keep  I withdraw. This is going nowhere. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very well-formatted article, with plenty of sources (though they are offline and cannot be verified) and a lot of information. However I doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N. Secondly the sources are unverifiable so it fails WP:V as well. My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up. More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI with the article's subject and is seemingly related to him (as can be inferred from his username). If someone can provide or quote reliable sources indicating why he is notable I'd be happy to withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not doubting any of the above, but it' a good bio worth keeping. There's plenty of crap to be weeded without attacking well-done bios of characters of marginal notability. I know that's not regarded as a legitimate defense in these debates, but it's a fact. Use the notability challenges wisely, friends... Carrite (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really a reason to keep. It's just an inclusionist point of view. You're simply using the WP:NOHARM argument without addressing the concerns. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I freely admit this. Given the rules of Wikipedia, once this article hits this page, it's probably going to be destroyed. Why? For what positive end? Use the chainsaw wisely... Carrite (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The positive end of this discussion is that wikipedia will hopefully fulfill its purpose of being an encyclopedia. There's no need for unencyclopedic content here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - nothing else to add here. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'know, it's frustrating that "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" is regarded as a good argument, while "Wikipedia is full of crap 50x worse than this and we should concentrate on that" is regarded as an invalid argument. But, for the sake of argument, I'll pick up the gauntlet... Carrite (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to over-use arguments to avoid in deletion discussions such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and others. Anyway, if it's your wish, so be it. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These notability debates each have an underlying theme: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must not pollute the encyclopedia." That's the ultimate over-used argument, actually. That's fine, I agree with the premise, as long as we're actually attacking the pollution, rather than well-done decent bios of borderline individuals like this one. The chances of a non-Romanian speaker defending this challenge are near nil. I accept that. The point is, this challenge was a waste of time from the get-go. The inclusion hurts nothing, the deletion subtracts from our knowledge base. And there are tons and tons and tons of articles out there which ARE bringing the Wikipedia project down, let there be no mistake. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Let's see if we can get this fellow over the notability bar, shall we? Here's something: Ioan Dimancescu was featured as a character in The War in Romania series. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's Dimancescu again, but my Romanian is rusty and it's a blog, and god knows the world will end if we use an extensive blog article as evidence of notability in one of these Takes Self Too Serioiusly notability challenges... Carrite (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our comrades at Romanian Wikipedia believe Demancescu to be notable... See? Carrite (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like the English WP article is a straight translation of the Romanian WP article, I note... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Carrite, but the blog is Mr. Alin Dimancescu's work, the same author of our pretty article. And the Romanian article too. And given the film credits names, it seems the Dimancescu's family as a whole and not only Alin are very much involved in keeping memory of their lovely ancestor...Maashatra11 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Being a family member is no bar to writing a WP article on a topic, only that one needs to look closely for POV writing... Anyway... Here is evidence that Dimancescu qualifies under Sports notability rules: He was part of the Romanian delegation at the Inter-Allied Games (Paris, 1919)[2], being a component of the rugby team at the first matches registered in the official record of the national team. (Source: Nicu Alexe și colectiv, Enciclopedia Educației Fizice și Sportului din România, Editura Aramis, București, 2002). That's independent evidence that he was a member of a National Team which participated in international competition... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still non-notable per WP:NSPORT. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, here we go, significance of Inter-Allied Games: The inter-allied games, Paris, 22nd June to 6th July, 1919; (1919)... But, like I say, this article was a goner as soon as it made this page, because too many people consider Notability some sort of Talmudic sacred doctrine, rather than a somewhat flexible guideline for appropriateness of inclusions... Whatever... Carrite (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Carrite.  Otherstuffexists is not a sufficient argument, but it should not be dismissed when it supports a cogent argument, as here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how being a participant of the Inter-Allied Games is enough to be considered notable. However I can't argue if you like to think so. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage is sufficient to reflect notability, and that argument is bolstered by otherstuffexists, which is appropriate to consider as part of an argument in favor of keeping (though not as the only reason). IDONTLIKEIT of course goes both ways, and isn't a reason to delete in the face of sufficient RS coverage and similar articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that I didn't like it. You better read my deletion rationale. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I "better"? Or what?  You "better" find a more civil way to make a suggestion.


 * I read what you wrote. You indicated that there are plenty of sources.  Great.  That they are offline and cannot be verified -- though you fail to mention the importance/relevance of this.  You say there is a lot of information.  Great.  You say you "doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N."  Why do you doubt it?  And why does it fail WP:N on the basis of you having a "doubt"?  You say that the sources are unverifiable so it  fails WP:V as well.  That's wrong.  Why are the sources unverifiable?  There is no requirement that they be on-line.  Or in your library in Kalamazoo, or wherever you are.  You write "My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up."  It doesn't have to.  Verifiability is not contingent upon google search results (though that would simplify these discussions).  You also write "More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI".  You "better" read WP:COI -- that's reason to look carefully at the matter, but bears not a bit in the notability consideration.
 * "You better" read up on AGF and on not biting the newbies ... Before you get smacked across the face with a very large TROUT.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  —Maashatra11 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to all trout suggestions. You already suggested me (or threatened) one if I recall, so no problem. You can give me one. Thanks. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the above and hope that is enough for my cause! Alin Dimancescu (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello everybody! I am o rookie on wiki and I am also the grandson of Ioan Dem Dimancescu. I have nothing to cover, this is why I signed with my real name. I know wiki policies about the notability. Please take into account for your judgment the following: 1. Romanian sources on Internet are very poor, even recent events are not so well covered 2. my off-line sources are credible, part of them (press clipping) are scanned and grouped on Dimancescu's Collection external link; rest of sources represent a Sports Enciclopedia, a National Radio Archieve review, an on-line edition of the Interallied Games - Paris etc. 3. I think that the simple fact that the biggest Scouts Center in Romania (please check on scout.ro) took his name is a clear recognition of his constant contribution to the Romanian Scouts development from the first moment up before WW2 when the the movement was banned; 4. I am trying to close the gap about the wiki info, this is why I put some links to unexisting pages (if I have the chance, I can came up later with info), but is somehow natural to start with my grandfather's profile (even if wiki has no "emotions"). Please take into account that in Romania (after '89) we are trying to rediscover our history (facts & people) through personal efforts (mainly).
 * 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.