Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihai Bogdan Antonescu


 * 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. No evidence that WP:GNG can be satisfied. -Scottywong | confer _ 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mihai Bogdan Antonescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Whenever you have an article touting its subject as an "adventurer, known as a journalist, essay writer, polemist, poet, graphic artist, musician, musical producer, television person, explorer, political commentator, financial analyst, expert in public image, lobby agent, businessman" (one wonders if he has time to eat or sleep), you know you're probably dealing with a promotional effort. Sure enough, the article creator, whose only contribution to Wikipedia this is (of course), is the second in command at Antonescu's business.

OK, so why delete? Well, because once the promotion is stripped away, there's hardly anything substantive left. Searching for him by his full name does reveal passing mention of the trial he underwent, but nothing very substantial. Searching for "Mihai Antonescu", when it doesn't turn up hits for his namesake (who happened to be not just an anti-Semite, but also a genocidal one), comes up with nothing more substantive than videos from OTV, the dregs of Romanian television.

"What they do on ro.wiki" isn't usually a very convincing argument for me, but consensus there is solidly behind deletion, and I hope to see the same here. - Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable per WP:GNG, serious COI fears, and - as pointed out - once the more obvious self-promotional stuff is removed (magazines with tiny circulations, rock bands even Romanian fans haven't heard of, protest posturing about unfair convictions etc), there's almost nothing left there at all. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional and irrelevant. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The journalist does appear to have been discussed in a number of news sources about writing an anti-Semitic piece:
 * AP: Journalist reportedly given two-year suspended sentence for anti-Semitic articles
 * Translated article from Romanian news
 * Jewish News Weekly
 * However, even though these sources provide some coverage and are independent and reliable, this is a case of notability stemming from a single event. I support deletion.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've de-peacocked the lead and fixed the graphic a little. I have a hunch that this individual probably passes GNG, but no specific citations to add at the moment. There are significant problems with the form of this piece, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, we base votes in deletion discussions on concrete evidence, not hunches. I hope to see more of the former. - Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, it's rude for nominators to badger those offering opinions. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, there's no rule preventing participants from engaging with one another and challenging opinions they see fit to be challenged. Just as you have a right to an opinion, I have a right to try and demolish it. Now, if you wish to supply evidence, and not just a hunch, of Antonescu's purported notability, that would boost your case. If not, I'm sure the closing administrator will take that into account. - Biruitorul Talk 14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Legally notable: Anti-Semitism has rarely been sanctioned by the judicial systems of Eastern European countries. In Romania there is no precedent, not even from the times of autocratic regimes. Moreover, several things about Mihai Antonescu are tought in the Romanian Law School, and not only related to Art. 317 of the Penal Code. Lawyer 109.102.148.251 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * — 109.102.148.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd raise WP:BLP1E warning flags here, as well as pointing out that the article as it stands doesn't seem to emphasise this supposed legal significance. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  11:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want your vote to carry weight, you should back up your statements. Show us secondary sources attesting that Antonescu is taught in Romanian law schools. Show us secondary sources demonstrating first the fact and then the lasting importance of Antonescu's conviction. Mere assertions are not enough; evidence is needed. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To support notability: The conviction for anti-Semitism had no precedent and issued major reactions:

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty report: East European Perspectives: August 16, 2000

“Only one person has been brought to justice in Romania for anti-Semitic attacks, although the list of publications, articles, and authors that would qualify for articles in the Penal Code prohibiting either incitement to ethnic hatred or anti-Semitism runs into the thousands. That person was journalist Mihai Bogdan Antonescu, who worked for the weekly "Atac la persoana" (Attack on Persons). Properly named, the weekly--a scandal tabloid combining politics with sex published since 1997--makes even "Romania mare" and "Politica" pale in comparison. Antonescu was sentenced in October 1999 to a two-year suspended sentence for publishing articles "spreading intolerance towards the Jews " (Mediafax, 20 October 1999). In September 1998, in his regular column called "Swastika," Antonescu wrote that too many "potential soap [people] from Tel Aviv" are walking on Bucharest's streets and he deplored the fact that owing to its present economic "penury," Romania did not have "sufficient barbed wire and Cyclone-B gas" to provide a solution to the problem ("Atac la persoana," 7 September 1998).“

“Theft of a Nation: Romania Since Communism”, by Tom Gallagher, Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2005, ISBN 978-1850657163, page 280-281:

“In 1999 the New York-based Anti-Defamation League complained to the International Soccer Federation (FIFA) about the anti-semitic journalism sponsored by Dragomir. Facing charges of incitement, Mihai Antonescu, a former deputy editor of ‘Atac la persoana’, a scandal-sheet owned by Dragomir, told Romanian prosecutors that he had been instructed to write articles denigrating Jews; ‘I wrote my reports in the spirit of orders issued by the owner’”

for link also http://www.amazon.com/Theft-Nation-Romania-Since-Communism/dp/1850657165

N.B. Mihai-Bogdan Antonescu is rarely referred with his entire name. Search on "Mihai Antonescu" may cause confusion as it is a common Romanian name. Ruxandraprecupetu (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can easily understand that a subject that I find notable is not, objectively speaking, considered so. What I cannot understand is the subjective obstinacy in debating articles. Affectivity does not concur with wikipedia policies. The discussion must not involve personal attitude about a certain subject.

I see that Biruitorul is animated by unsupressed urges, expression of his own political opinions, fact that I officially indicate as a severe breach of academical neutrality. I sustain my opinion with Biruitoru’s edits on some articles, such as Dan Diaconescu and Corneliu Vadim Tudor. Dan Diaconescu is a person, liked or disliked, who created a phenomenon in the past 15 years, the owner and the main star of a national television with a share of 2.5 – 3% (rating 0.9%) (better than, let's say, Disney Channel), a man who created a political party credited with a fifth of the declared vote intention. He is notable, the article does not deserve such blanking. Corneliu Vadim Tudor is not a controversial politician, but a politician. All politicians may be controversial. Ruxandraprecupetu (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I would urge Miss Precupetu, the general director of Mihai Bogdan Antonescu's outfit (see WP:COI for that), to comment on content, not contributors. We are not here to discuss my edits on Diaconescu and Vadim, but for the record, my partial blanking of the first article was because it was horribly written, not because I dispute his notability; my revert on the Vadim article was because we do not accept whitewashing of reliable content.
 * Second, a couple of lines in Gallagher's book do not equate with in-depth coverage. Neither does the passing mention in the other article you brought up. When we do get an article on Antisemitism in Romania (and one is needed), Mihai Bogdan Antonescu should have a place there. But a separate article? I'm not seeing the need. - Biruitorul Talk 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I write about what I know... I believe it is everyone's duty to write their side of the history. Ruxandraprecupetu (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2012 (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.