Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Bozesan


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Bozesan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources for this article fall into several broad categories:


 * Pages that don't mention the subject:, , , , , ,
 * Books, articles, presentations or links to articles and books written by the subject (i.e., not independent sources):, , , , , ,
 * Little blurb bios/interviews written by groups with which the subject is affiliated or by firms that pay her (again, not independent):, , , , , ,
 * Pages where her name is listed in passing among lengthy lists of names:, , , , , , , , ,
 * Other random stuff:, , , , , , , , ,
 * Malware:
 * Random YouTube videos uploaded by YouTube user "Mariana Bozesan":, , and another random YouTube:

I would submit that, while there's certainly plenty of mention online about the subject, she blatantly fails the test set by WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Thus, the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as this is simply troubled overall regarding appearance and tone to where it would be best deleted, also because it's currently not comprehensible for even basic general notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The subject's work and notability fall clearly under the guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC and meet the following criteria, of which only at least one must apply for the person to be considered academically notable:
 * 1. The subject's work has been cited in multiple books, papers and articles.
 * 3. The subject is a full international member of the highly selective and prestigious scholarly society Club of Rome - limited to 100 members globally and having several highly notable members, such as Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker and Klaus Töpfer (former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme).
 * 4. The subject's work has impacted a substantial number of academic institutions including Oxford University and Stanford, where she has lectured and published.
 * 7. The subject has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity through her work as an investor, as well as in non-academic lectures and talks.
 * Keep as the subject meets substantially more than the required number of criteria for academic notability, not to mention general notability. Academic institutions such as Stanford and Oxford, and their peer-reviewed publishing houses, are clearly regarded as reliable sources. In addition, several more references have been added, including more secondary sources, that support the arguments for notability, therefore to keep the article. Tdtess oasis  09:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reply is most unconvincing. Let's go through this point by point:
 * You claim the subject passes criterion 1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but you don't actually bring those sources in any meaningful sense. Simply throwing up a list of links, without showing how her research is cited, is meaningless.
 * The Club of Rome is a think tank, not a scholarly society.
 * Significant impact is not demonstrated by linking two papers the subject has published.
 * Neither giving a TED talk, nor talking for a quarter of an hour to another group of people and having the same group publish this in its minutes is really evidence of "substantial impact outside academia".
 * The main problem with the article is that all the links are part of a self-published, self-referential, conflict-of-interest closed circle. There's nothing truly independent referencing this individual. - Biruitorul Talk 17:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Your reply brings up excellent points, and I will elaborate on each of them.
 * The book and paper sources, upon inspection as cited in the actual article, are cited with page number where the subject is referenced. In the case of Spinkart, Karl Peter (2013) on p. 162, in the case of Glaenzel, G.; Scheuerle, T. , on pages 1-31. These are independent sources citing the subject for academic and neutral use, which also clears up the legitimate issue of "all" links being "conflict of interest closed-circle".
 * You are correct in stating that the Club of Rome is a think tank. In this case, it is composed of scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state.
 * Simply giving a TED-talk usually does not construe "substantial impact". In the case of TEDxMarrakesh, the subject was invited to speak by and spoke before the family of Richard Branson, namely Vanessa Branson and Eve Branson, two highly significant individuals whose invitation clearly shows independent interest in the subject's work. Note: TED-speakers do not receive compensation of any kind, and it is an organisation completely independent of the subject. As are Stanford, Oxford, the International Museum of Women before they appointed her, and so was the Club of Rome until they discovered the subject's work. All the mentioned "closed-circles" are like this. They were independent, until they invited the subject on her own merits.
 * Thank you for vigilantly helping the article get better, and helping us slowly but surely meet more and more criteria. Tdtess oasis  09:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'm disinclined to evaluate all of the sources above, because superficially they don't seem to cut it; but I will say that she does not meet WP:PROF in my book, because her works don't seem to have created much of an impact. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Biruitorul's evaluation of the sources seems comprehensive. The article sets off immediate red flags for me, since large numbers of unreliable citations (sometimes simply notes by the article's author) are repeatedly thrown together and synthesized to support claims that aren't explicitly backed by any of them. For example, the article states Bozesan's work addresses ... the economic empowerment of young entrepreneurs, and no less than eight citations are given to support this claim. All of these citations are links to appearances or papers by the article's subject, or in one case simply the statement that Bozesan was a "Former board member of the International Museum of Women", out of which the editor has derived the original conclusion stated in the article. It looks like much of the article is WP:OR on these lines.


 * As far as WP:ACADEMIC goes, Tdtess oasis cites criteria 1, 3, 4, and 7 in support of the article's notability, but none of them actually seem to apply to the article. The Club of Rome is not a scholarly society and doesn't ipso facto provide notability in any case—there wouldn't need to be a section on its article specifically titled "Notable members" if it did (#3); simply holding a lectureship at Oxford and Stanford is not evidence of "significant impact in the area of higher education" (#4); and a couple of citations, a TED talk, and some conference appearances do not constitute evidence of significant impact (#1, #7). I believe she fails on this count.


 * The specific guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC aside, the article appears to fail WP:GNG. Although a Google search turns up 3,050 results for Bozesan's name, there is precious little independent coverage of her—the bulk of the results are press releases, institutional profiles, or books, articles, and interviews by her. On the first five pages of results I couldn't find a single independent source. — Nizolan  (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to in another AfD I have learned that there is a name for the phenomenon with the references I cited, WP:BOMBARD, which seems to describe what's happening with this article pretty well ("Overloading an article with dubious and tangential citations"). — Nizolan  (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm totally nonplussed with "sources" currently (March 21 2016) in article. My independent news sweeps did not find much other than press releases. I watched 5 minutes of her TEDX talk and it did not seem polished and it said, above the video, "This video was filmed at an independently organized TEDx event and uploaded by the organizer". And, given the length of the current article, I think we're going to have problems here with promotional activity. That pageviews (unofficial test I know but I use it sometimes) are lackluster tends to confirm my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2016 (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.