Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veaceslav Stăvilă


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Veaceslav Stăvilă

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unsourced stub about a historian, which literally just states that he exists, the end. As always, making a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia requires more than just saying that he exists -- notable awards for his work, third party critical analysis of his significance, etc. -- but nothing like that is present here. It bears note that the article has recently been blanked, without explanation or discussion, by an editor with the username of "Veac stavila" (obvious WP:COI) -- but if I look back at the state of the article before it was blanked, it wasn't appreciably better: all it ever contained was one additional sentence stating that he held a role on a committee, followed immediately by a contextless, unfootnoted WP:LINKFARM of external links to mostly primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting ones. And while there's an article on the Romanian Wikipedia, it's longer but not any better sourced, so we can't just pull over sources from there and call it a day either. His committee role simply isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing, than any version of this article has ever shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found an entry for a book he published, "Recea Străşenilor" (2009), in some sort of Moldovan national bibliography, but with no more detail than that. The Romanian-language Wikipedia article on him lists many more, but some of them may be self-published and the article makes him sound like some sort of amateur genealogist rather than a scholarly historian. In any case, that's not enough. Even for a book author, we need in-depth reviews about multiple books, not merely their existence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — no indication the subject fulfills the criteria set out by WP:PROF or any other relevant policies. - Biruitorul Talk 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - this BLP is completely unsourced, and there just isn't enough out there to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Moldova (where the subject is listed, but not linked. Before this was reduced to a complete stub, this was the main statement in the article.  This article has a list of members.  It was established by presidential decree and the members are described as "doctors", suggesting the subject is an academic.  The COI intervention, probably by the subject, suggests that he does not want a WP article on him.  While that is not a reason for deletion, we should accede to his wish.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 10 January 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.