Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sava Dumitrescu


 * 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  keep Mandsford 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sava Dumitrescu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neither of the sources provided indicates notability: the first is a dead link leading to some sort of forum, and the second is this article, which does no more than list Dumitrescu's name as part of a series of names, but says nothing more about him. Google Scholar is not encouraging either. I don't know whether being rector at Grigore T. Popa would qualify him for inclusion under WP:PROF, but the salient point at this time is that the claim is unverified. If we have sources verifying the claim, we can examine it, but until then, we should delete, as notability is unproven. - Biruitorul Talk 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:PROF. This link appears to confirm the post of professor. This link appears to confirm the two books. Better verification and indication of notability for both assertions would be desirable, but I guess the fact that this is Romania means it's probably the best we'll get. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither attending a conference nor writing a book (or even two books) is substantive evidence for notability. Also, "this is Romania" doesn't cut it as an argument: the notability of present-day Romanian physicians who actually are notable is readily discernible from an abundance of reliable sources. See Ionel Sinescu, for example. Furthermore, even if there were a lack of online sources for Romania, WP:GNG applies universally, regardless of a subject's country of origin. - Biruitorul Talk 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking for evidence of the role as professor; the conference itself was immaterial. I provided some more references below, but I am beginning to have some concern about verifying this role of rector. He was certainly not the rector in 2008/9 - that was one Prof. dr. Vasile Astărăstoae - but the article does say he was, not is, the rector. It is really for the article creator to substantiate this, and it would be helpful if they would do so now. However, the additional references which show him to be president of what appears to be a board reporting to the government looks like it satisfies criteria #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". So I am still of the opinion that this article (unlike all the others in this family history series I have looked at) is justifiably here. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:PROF. I added the above refs as well as three others. Nihola (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep if that nefarious source known as Wikipedia has any merit here: Rector: Rector is the head of most universities and other higher educational institutions in at least parts of Central and Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine.... This is a weak stub that needs additional sourcing, but notable per se in terms of the subject of the article. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read my full deletion nomination, so I'll try again. Even if the rector position indicates notability (and as Dahn explains below, that isn't necessarily the case), the salient point at this time is that the claim is unverified. If we have sources verifying the claim, we can examine it, but until then, we should delete, as notability is unproven. Understood? If you make an argument for notability, you first need sources demonstrating the factual basis of your claim. - Biruitorul Talk 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I still don't see a citation for him being rector of anything, and am personally not convinced that his achievements, rector included, are enough under WP:PROF. Where is the "significant impact in his scholarly discipline"? Where is the "highly prestigious honor", or "the highly selective and prestigious" society of which he is a member? And so on. No, Mr. Dumitrescu, judging from the article and the added sources, is on par with many other senior academics in Romania who hold rector positions but may not be sufficiently significant in their field(s). The burden of proving otherwise falls on the contributor. As we stand, this is just part of the Filotti family cruft. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the rectorship can be sourced, it would be enough to pass WP:PROF. And only one criteron is enough: one doesn't need academic impact AND awards AND society memberships etc. But I agree that sourcing is currently lacking. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: these may be useful. This link is to the university which shows him as a professor; this link describes the Romanian National Ethics Committee as "established as an independent body in coordination of the Minister of Health, consisting of health professionals and non-medical members", and Dumitrescu as its president; this is another article about that role. I'll look for more later. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * David, I haven't said that one needs to pass both, but he seems to me not to pass either. PROF 6 doesn't validate this case, either: indeed, we're talking about an upper school, but forgive me for not finding that a particularly important one even in its Romanian context. And, as you yourself note, it remains as yet unverified that he was ever rector. Richard, I also don't think that him being on the Ethics Committee is necessarily important enough to validate a bio, with or without the rectorship, unless we assume that we should have articles on all the other members, and perhaps the Committee itself. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as she held the highest position at one of the more prestigious universities in Romania, therefore passes wp:PROF. Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can forgive your forgetting that Sava is a male name. What I find unpardonable is your apparent failure to read this discussion at even a cursory level. Whether or not a rectorship at Grigore T Popa indicates notability, the fact remains unverified by reliable sources &mdash; indeed, by any source whatsoever. So for our purposes, he was never rector, and you need to base your claim for notability on verifiable propositions. I'm surprised I have to mention this to an author of 15 Featured Articles, and much other worthy content besides.
 * And I would suggest that the closing administrator disregard the "he's notable because he was a rector" votes (as opposed to more thoughtful ones like RichardOSmith's). As far as we know, he was not, so using that as a premise for keeping the article is invalid. - Biruitorul Talk 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this and this (which are, if not reliable ones, at least "honourable" sources) suggest he was indeed the rector (the first says that around 1993 he was already a former rector).Anonimu (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, a parliamentary speech wouldn't be much use in an article, while a reprint from Jurnalul de est (whatever that is) is also a bit of a stretch. But taking your point that the sources are at least credible, what is glaring here is how much effort is needed to come up with anything about the man, and how paltry the results are even then. If we were to write about the incumbent rector of the University of Bucharest, for instance, we'd have no shortage of high-quality sources from which to choose. By contrast, what we have on Dumitrescu is the equivalent of diving to the bottom of the sea expecting riches, only to dredge up a few rusted copper coins. Real notability is usually apparent, and doesn't require bending all sorts of policies in order to demonstrate. - Biruitorul Talk 20:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To complete Biruitorul's analogy, and to establish that the Bucharest rector is not a case of overexposure (systemic bias?), I did the same with hits on Ion Cucui, the current Valahia University of Târgovişte rector, which is arguably much less covered than the University of Bucharest. Other than the many google hits, I got some 44 gbooks results and some 5 pages of gscholar results. Comparably, all gbooks results for "Sava Dumitrescu" are to another man of that name, a certain anti-communist commissar of the interwar period, and there are only 3 gscholar hits. Dahn (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I guess we'll have to wait for him to die before we can establish notability using reliable on-line sources. Finding reliable on-line sources about Romanian (and most second and third world) scientists (as in natural science) is quite hard, especially the ones who were active before Internet became mainstream in these regions of the world (for Romania that means late 90s/early 2000s). The ones who evade this systemic bias do so mostly for political (in the broad sense) reasons, either because they held controversial views or they had come into conflict with some statal authorities. Thus, in my opinion, if there's a credible suggestion towards the notability of a non-first world scientist, such as rectorship in a rather major university (which anyway makes him notable according to the standard wikipedia guidelines), that scientist should have an article on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll have to disagree there. Expanding coverage of notable Romanian topics is a worthy goal. Seeking to cover more than we would normally cover for countries on the "right" side of the systemic bias divide, simply because they fall on the "wrong" side, is counterproductive. Notable scientists from Romania or, for that matter, from Rwanda, can stand on their own merit, without us needing to resort to grading their significance on a different curve. (Moreover, as 1960s-80s Romania simply had less publishing activity going on than in the contemporaneous West, and as Rwanda has always had less than both, it stands to reason that Western subjects will always be more thoroughly covered, no matter how much material from "neglected" countries is digitized or otherwise made accessible.) As for the "sources are more abundant offline" argument: maybe so, but this would be an If a tree falls in a forest situation &mdash; WP:BURDEN requires actual presentation of sources, not appeals to their possible existence. - Biruitorul Talk 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was expressing my opinion on wether he passes wp:prof. Anyways, this forum strongly suggests that he was indeed a rector. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this reliable enough: http://www.bzi.ro/rafuiala-dinozaurilor-61015? Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Source in bzi.ro (romanian newspaper Bună Ziua Iași) confirms he was former rector (head) of the university.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:59, 17 March 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.