Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Creţu


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ion Creţu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent sources attest to the notability of this autobiography. Biruitorul Talk 19:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. An author's last try at immortality. --71.110.71.74 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ANYBIO (as well as WP:AUTO). I'm surprised the article has lasted this long.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - For starters, he was commissioned by Polirom to do the Romanian translation of Jonathan Franzen's "The Twenty-Seventh City". Which suggests that Franzen's publishers considered him sufficiently notable in the field of translation - comments in "Romania literara" at http://www.romlit.ro/an_bogat_i_cu_surprize.  I can't comment on his Romanian output, but his writings have been published in various journals including Luceaferul and so have his translations - e.g. Metamorphoses - the Amherst/Smith/Univ of Massachussetts literary translation http://www.smith.edu/metamorphoses/issues/2000fall_contrib.html. Opbeith (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Polirom chose him at random, but notability is demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not through editors' speculation about why a subject was chosen by a company to undertake a certain job. Likewise with his published creations: to be sure, those are peer-reviewed publications and his work didn't just sneak in there; at the same time, they are not a conclusive indication of notability. For that, independent, reliable sources about the subject are necessary. - Biruitorul Talk 23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I noticed a source was added, but it should be emphasized that this is his own publisher's website, hardly independent confirmation of notability. As for the mention of his spending summer 1996 as a writer in residence at the Mary Anderson Cultural Center &mdash; good for him, but let's not grasp at straws. How does holding a temporary job at an institution we appear to consider non-notable provide any evidence of notability? Creţu has had a career; I'm not saying it was an unproductive or dishonorable one, but nothing particularly distinguishes it from thousands of similar careers. - Biruitorul Talk 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Mary Anderson Center, there's no need for every item of information in an article to be notable in itself. Being commissioned to translate Jonathan Franzen does suggest you're quite prominent in the field (as long as the translation was OK).  Isn't Cretu an expert on postmodernism in Romania? Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaning toward Delete. The argument about how Polirom found Creţu an expert on postmodernism is, I have to say, contrived; the one third-party comment provided about his Franzen translation only mentions that the translation was his work, and does in no way refer to the merits of his work. The subject may yet find coverage in such sources, but I find that these are still lacking, and, with all due respect for Mr. Creţu, do not think that he is (yet?) notable enough for his own entry. Dahn (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm understood to be saying that Polirom found Cretu an expert on postmodernism that certainly would be a contrivance because I didn't say any such thing - an article on postmodernism he published in Luceaferul is cited by a Romanian academic but I don't have any competence in Romanian whereas Biruitorul does, which is why I asked him if he could comment on that, nothing to do with my comment concerning Polirom's choice of him to translate Franzen. I said absolutely nothing about Polirom considering him an expert on postmodernism, just that they'd commissioned him to translate Franzen.  There's other evidence concerning his reputation as an Anglo-Romanian translator - eg the Pop works published in Metamorphoses.  Given that there's no absolute imperative to delete the article - it's not as if it contains seriously contentious or misleading material - it seems reasonable to accept the country's major publisher's assessment of Cretu as useful rough "place-marking" information even if it's only indirect evidence. At the moment the evidence for notability is in the balance - and as usual in this kind of situation more effort seems to be devoted to contesting notability rather than to examining the merits of the case. Opbeith (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is an imperative to delete articles that do not show significant coverage in secondary/third-party sources, and this regardless of their subject's contextual credentials. Dahn (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's a more pressing need in this case than, say, trying to create an article on Luceaferul (the journal) or making good one of the red links in the Contemporary literature section at the Romanian literature article? Opbeith (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or even maybe correcting my mis-spelling of Luceafarul? Opbeith (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, but here's an attempt at an answer to your direct question: It is as imperative, only one takes less time to delete a useless article than to properly write a useful one. I for one am also doing much of the latter (for these past days, see Colecţia de Povestiri Ştiinţifico-Fantastice, Cuvântul (literary magazine). Dahn (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not just talking about time in the abstract, we're talking about the constructive use of time. As you're familiar with Cuvantul perhaps you would be able to comment on Cretu's status as a contributor to Cuvantul? Opbeith (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are talking about the time it takes to write not just an article, but a decent article; it is just as important and helpful the time spent trying to maintain a standard and screening whatever article was written out of vanity etc. To answer your question: it is clear to me that not all of Cuvântul's contributors are notable, and that in fact very few are; those that are notable are so not because of their CV, but because they and their work are amply discussed in third-party sources. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the Cretu biography of Mihai Eminescu cited at any useful indicator of notability?  I assume you and Biruitorul as native-speaking Romanians can judge better than I can.  I'm puzzled by the anonymous editor's comment rather point-of-view comment about an author's last attempt to grasp immortality.  That suggests that Cretu's output is known even if not universally acclaimed, and that Romanian discussion of Cretu's output exists that you might be able to refer to in a discussion of his notability whose general drift at least the rest of us could check using Google Translate. Opbeith (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With the help of Google Translate I find this comment by Alexandru Surdu, President of the Institute of Philisophy and member of the Romanian Academy, about Cretu's 2010 publication Lecturi de serviciu (pub. Fundatia Culturala Ideea Europeana in the collection Biblioteca Ideea Europeana, ISBN 9789731925547, title rendered by GT as "Reading Service") at http://www.depozituldecarti.ro/carti/158240/Lecturi-de-serviciu: "The author proves an excellent knowledge of contemporary literature from other countries - authors, books, issues, themes, etc.. - As well as a great appetite for the related fields of literary awards, relationships between writers, literary movements of some of the dynamics that have marked the past century . In short, a literary space in all its complexity." Another mangled quote, from Niculae Birna, notes "Constitutive texts of the volume and consistency conveniently combines altitude ideas, but instructive and relevant, given the elegant appeal."  OK, this is mashed-up publisher's blurb, but again the incidental evidence of Cretu being able to attract a usable comment from as distinguished figure as Surdu suggests that there should be more substantial evidence as to notability available with a bit of looking. Opbeith (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get something out of the way: I too am a native speaker of Romanian, and as such I can tell you that the two new links are unquotable. One is a personal page from a student site, the other a commercial site. Dahn (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the quotability, we're talking about the likelihood of other sources being available before proceeding to destruction. The student page cited a biography of a significant figure.  You choose to focus on the unquotability of the site rather than pick up on my suggestion that this was a possible lead to more substantial sources of information.  So I presume that you as a native Romanian speaker are happy to assure me that despite Sernu's endorsement  authoritative sources in Romanian indicating Cretu's notability do not exist and it is not worth pursuing any further attempt to consolidate the substance of the article. (Incidentally the Eminescu biography was a false trail as the author seems to be a different Ion Cretu). Opbeith (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a tree falls in a forest. From my brief investigation of what's out there on the net, it seems like Creţu is, at best, in a gray area of notability - he may in theory be worth an individual article in the future, but for now the independent, published sources that deal with him simply mention that he exists. Not enough. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2011 (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.