Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovidiu Brazdău


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ovidiu Brazdău

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A thoroughly promotional piece on a subject without in-depth coverage in independent sources, as a look at the footnotes will show.


 * Consultants' report
 * Blog post on a public relations site
 * Conference lineup
 * Lecture announcement
 * YouTube video
 * Speaker list
 * List of PhD students
 * Faculty directory
 * Blog post
 * Conference schedule
 * Stuff from Brazdău's site and more of the same
 * Article written by Brazdău
 * Press release from a public relations firm
 * Wikipedia article
 * Personal site of Brazdău's friend
 * Press release
 * More advertising
 * News article that makes no mention of Brazdău
 * Conference minutes
 * Some insider newsletter
 * Something not mentioning Brazdău and likewise; same with this and this

Once we peer beneath the surface, we see that the impressive list of footnotes dissolves under scrutiny, and that Brazdău has scant coverage of the sort required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)I will check again the links and references for Ovidiu Brazdau's page, thanks. I will recheck also the spelling. Some comments on the links below.

A thoroughly promotional piece on a subject without in-depth coverage in independent sources, as a look at the footnotes will show. LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I will try to update the style and the descriptions, I never thought that this could look like a promotional article. My intention is just to show the facts.

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a site of the CQ Institute research partner
 * Consultants' report

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a magazine focused on advertising, is an interview with Ovidiu Brazdau on the newly formed Romanian Indoor Advertising Association (in romanian)
 * Blog post on a public relations site

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see the low relevance of the links, please explain why, thank you.

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Why this reference is not relevant for the topic? Thanks. LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is one of the biggest online database with researches where Ovidiu Brazdau is included with a peer-reviewed article (published in Elsevier Social and Behavioral Sciences) on consciousnes quotient.
 * Conference lineup
 * Lecture announcement
 * YouTube video
 * Speaker list
 * List of PhD students
 * Faculty directory
 * Blog post
 * Conference schedule
 * Stuff from Brazdău's site and more of the same
 * Article written by Brazdău

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a blog of one of the CQ Institute research partner. Why it is not relevant? Thanks.
 * Press release from a public relations firm

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This references is supporting the fact described. Why this is not ok? Thanks. LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) One of his projects is indoor advertising. Why the above links are not relevant for this project? Thanks.
 * Wikipedia article
 * Personal site of Brazdău's friend
 * Press release
 * More advertising

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a reference for the pacients satisfaction study and Ovidiu Brazdau was the coordinator of this study. This is an article in a mainstream romanian newspaper on the study. Why it's not relevant? Thank you.
 * News article that makes no mention of Brazdău


 * Conference minutes
 * Some insider newsletter
 * Something not mentioning Brazdău and likewise; same with this and this

Once we peer beneath the surface, we see that the impressive list of footnotes dissolves under scrutiny, and that Brazdău has scant coverage of the sort required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Please tell me which phrases are questionable and I will recheck them. Thanks.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I commented on your page about the consciousness science. This is a easily verifiable matter, there a lots of scientific organizations in the field of consciousness. I referenced one article from the ScienceDirect database, the article is published in Elsevier Social and Behavioral Sciences, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All other articles I found are in romanian.
 * Delete. He's not notable in any way as a scientist: no papers published in any major scientific journals and no one is citing his research. Not to mention that the field which he studies is borderline pseudoscience. bogdan (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) I will recheck the spelling again, this is my first article and I am not a native english speaker, so any feedback would be welcomed. Thanks. 
 * Delete Apparently the equivalent of an assistant professor ("Lector"), most of whom are not notable. The article is indeed highly promotional. However: I can not judge the important of Rumanian scientific journals, so I am not prepared to say the ones he publishes in are not major national journals. And whether the field he works is fringe is irrelevant--and I am not persuaded that this is fringe, rather than merely incomprehensible poorly translated jargon.  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. With relatively junior status and lack of heavily-cited academic publications, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF, so any notability would have to rest on WP:GNG and on the claims in the article that he is "very active in promoting psychology to the large audience". But the maze of very bad sources (some of the footnotes go to other Wikipedia articles, others to publications that do not mention the subject) make it difficult to determine whether there are any reliably-published sources that are independent of the subject and go into sufficient depth about him to pass GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (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.