Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin Bura


 * 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 speedy deleted. Clear and unequivocal consensus to delete. As the last participant (LibStar) had put it: fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Probable WP:AUTOBIO. El_C 22:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Valentin Bura

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Largely unsourced autobiography; no independent sources attest notability in any of the fields where the subject and author claims to have been active. Biruitorul Talk 23:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * --G.M.Hiram (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is extremely well-referenced, there exists a huge amount of material provided for almost every statement in the article.
 * The artistic notability of the creator in question is debatable, as any artistic act is. It is always hard to say which work of art is good and which isn't.
 * Yet, the important thing is that the referenced works are in fact authentic.


 * Whereas, the scientific importance of the author in question can be justified with papers and documents of an official character.
 * --G.M.Hiram (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The deleting procedure is also highly misleading and controversial as such. It is well known in professional scientific circles that when a negative hypothesis is introduced and users are asked to vote, the vast majority of the voters will be the ones harboring negative emotions on the topic. For further details on this topic please consult the page on []. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete he's authored a few papers, but nothing has been published about the individual in question. Next to nothing about him, only stuff published by him. He hasn't won any awards that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF for this 2013 PhD.  No sign of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NCREATIVE, nor any other notability.  Per disclosure of article author, appears to be WP:AUTOBIO. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of self-bio material on Wikipedia, perhaps 80% of all Living people biographies. Also it is not very clear what it is meant by "unsourced." This author is highly influential, it would be extremely hard to find references in the popular culture of the Millennium that aren't linked to his work. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — G.M.Hiram (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is the subject of this page.
 * Delete even speedy? Yes the subject exists. Yes the subject has worked in the areas described.  But no IRS, and no signs of any level of notability.  And autobiographical.  And (hence) violates BLP? Aoziwe (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Issues of Semantics "Notability" is a highly subjective consideration. The mathematician in question has a proposed solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, together with a proof that the Polynomial Hierarchy collapses. These results are yet to be peer-reviewed, however they present a high level of notability. What is the exact evidence this is a self-biography? The standpoint of the narrative seems quite neutral to tell you the truth. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, to help an understanding of wikipedia notability. The two sets of work, Riemann hypothesis, and Polynomial hierarchy collapse might become notable after they are peer reviewed, and those reviews, not just the papers on the works, are published themselves in peer reviewed journals.  See also WP:GNG, other "N"s already cited-linked above, etc.  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, Laszlo Babai's result that Graph Iso is in EXP(POLYLOG), a result of great magnitude in Combinatorics, is entirely correct and being rejected for publication everywhere. Yet it is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is highly saturated of facts like these. Non-peer-reviewed. You want other examples??! Perhaps Babai is an outlier on this one...--G.M.Hiram (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re László Babai. You are correct.  Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  And, please note that László Babai is not notable because of that graph isomorphism work.  Just for example, please see László Babai.  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Laszlo Babai doesn't spend his time writing on wikipedia about himself, because he is a serious person whose accomplishments speak for themselves. If you would like people to believe you are a serious, accomplished person, you should also not write about yourself on Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by what you do. There could have been someone on 7000 BC, who somehow saved humanity or led it to modern civilization. Yet there are no sources for such a person, therefore they don't have a Wikipedia page. Same here. You need external reliable sources (such as an interview in a newspaper, not a YouTube video) not coming from you and talking about you. "These results are yet to be peer-reviewed, however they present a high level of notability." no, if they haven't been reviewed or have received external attention, they aren't notable on Wikipedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there's something dodgy going in here mate. I spoken to Valentin Bura on the phone two weeks ago and he was in fact complaining that arXiv and several other journals are rejecting his articles for no sensible reasons. I reckon it's huge bonus to keep his stuff in here. Keep, mate. Keep. --FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This accounts appears to be a WP:MEATPUPPET (if not a sockpuppet). Super   Ψ   Dro  15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or plausibly just a troll. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Russ Woodroofe and Aoziwe. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Russ Woodroofe, Aoziwe, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Abuse_filter&diff=prev&oldid=613811796, and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=G.M.Hiram .  — Jeff G. ツ 13:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero evidence that Bura meets the relevant standards for academics or artists. Wikipedia is not a platform to boast that you have solved the Riemann hypothesis and demonstrated that modern medicine is unscientific. Let's put this tedious exercise in ego to bed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete well-written page, but most sources are either unreliable or don't actually talk about the biography of the subject. Non-notable. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely doesn't meet WP:PROF, no evidence of passing WP:GNG, and serious promotional issues making it likely that, even in the unlikely case that evidence for GNG could be found, we also could delete this under WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as embarrassing to Wikipedia and promotion of pseudomathematics. There is no case for notability here. To boot, the creation violates WP:COI. See also the discussion at ANI. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: per above. For the subject to vote Keep on an AfD of himself is the Mother of All COI issues.   Ravenswing      19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sadly. It seems like some of his mathematics work may be important, but importance doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia, and the vast majority of the provided detailed sources seem to be Primary. There's significant puffery going on as well. We need more reliable, secondary sources that cover him in detail. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there's not even a hint of importance. I get equally grandiose claims in my email inbox every few days, just because I'm a physicist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Self confessed autobiography of a non-notable academic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Autobiographical, self-sourced article about a non-notable and probably WP:FRINGE academic.  In the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be reduced to a stub and re-written in a much less credulous tone ApLundell (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Probable WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (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. }