Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Florescu


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

John Florescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic vanity page. Let's check through the online sources presented.


 * Cruft
 * No mention of John Florescu
 * Florescu's own company
 * Florescu Foundation
 * No mention of Florescu
 * Puff piece about his marriage
 * Cruft
 * Dead link
 * IMDb cruft (no mention of Florescu, either)
 * Press release hosted on Florescu's own website
 * Cruft
 * ?
 * ?
 * Editorial written by Florescu

In sum: there are scattered mentions here and there, as can be expected for the son of a famous father who's had a fairly successful career himself. But there's nothing approaching the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I would tentatively agree with the nominator's analysis of the sources in the article, and after doing some homework I couldn't find anything more relevant. It seems that the subject's father is far more notable, or at least there is more material about him. The bio does read like a vanity piece, and I suspect there is some COI going on there, but I don't see how the material there can sustain the notion that there is significant coverage of Mr. Florescu. Long and distinguished career for sure, but very little about it in reliable sources. The only thing I initially worried about was that we could be missing some sources in Romanian, but since the subject's career has largely progressed in the United States as far as I can see, it's unlikely that he would be more notable there than here. There are also some claims regarding his involvement in politics that I could not source. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:51, 16 March 2015 (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.