Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Țapu


 * 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. Consensus is that though evidence of notability might perhaps exist, it has not been discovered. If it is, the article can certainly be re-created, and I will be happy to userfy it against that possibility if asked. JohnCD (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Zoe Țapu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think there's a chance Dr. Țapu is notable, but I'm a little skeptical, for a few reasons:


 * Barely any Internet presence. Yes, most of her work was pre-web, but she died less than a month ago. I'd expect at least an obituary.
 * Similar for Google Scholar.
 * This source doesn't mention her; this one does, but almost in passing.

No doubt she had an interesting career, but I just don't know if she rises to the WP:PROF notability level. - Biruitorul Talk 03:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -[changed vote] she received the Prize of the Romanian Academy. The way these things work with honoured but boring scientists is that her passing will be mentioned in e.g. January 2014 when the 2013 yearbook comes out. Yes I realise the reality is that it was INCDA's whole durum wheat team that were notable, at least in terms of Romania in the 1970s, but we don't have sourced articles on the rest of the team, or even INCDA, so for the time being this article is plugging a notable topic area, and it isn't a BLP that we need to get all picky. Let this article stand as a testimony to that period in Romanian agro science. Aren't there any Romanian rappers and DJs we can delete instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting - where did you find reference to a prize?
 * Believe me, I've gone after plenty of Romanian rappers and DJs - it hasn't always turned out to my satisfaction, though. And I only wish we could get rid of the endless football player stubs. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm withholding judgment until we hear more about this prize, b/c without that, there doesn't seem to be any hint of notability. Ray  Talk 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe not WP:PROF, but she surely meets WP:BIO criteria. Scientios (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep if the prize can be documented, weak delete if not. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per sources. Țapu was in charge with the Romanian durum wheat research program from 1957 to 1990 at the world-renowned INCDA Fundulea. In fact she is the only researcher cited as working on durum there. See http://www.incda-fundulea.ro/50ani/oamenii.html - Scientios (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes INCDA Fundulea "world-renowned"? And there have been sixteen wheat researchers there in the past half-century. Sure, she was perhaps the only one working on durum wheat, but with all due respect, "only durum wheat researcher in a Communist-era lab in a godforsaken farm town" isn't that great a claim to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep userify or delete since prize not won - Zoe Tapu appears to be notable based on claims in the article & prize. However I'm less sure about her son Codrin Țapu, born 1973; he does work in psychology and there seem to be a disproportionate number of articles in and around psychology that are WP:FRINGE. It appears on its face to be notable but needs some digging, I would think. --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What prize? Or, more to the point, what sources indicate Țapu may have won a prize? - Biruitorul Talk 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The prize noted here. I'm assuming sources can be produced.  Obviously if they can't and we can't verify the prize, that lessens the argument for keeping her. --Lquilter (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the participants mentioned a prize on 28 February; it's now 6 March, and despite several users questioning the existence of this prize, no evidence it ever existed has been produced. Our articles, and presumably decisions on retaining or deleting them, are based on reliable, published sources, and the burden of demonstrating claims rests on those who make them. Based on the evidence before us now, no such prize existed. - Biruitorul Talk 14:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not to be picky, but we have (a) an assertion that she received the Romanian Academy Prize; and (b) no evidence to the contrary. So that would be some evidence (albeit second-hand) that she received it.  The prize itself appears to be longstanding, of international scope, and awarded in the sciences as well as the humanities, so it's plausible that she would receive it. (See google search on "romanian academy prize".) See also [http://www.acad.ro/academia2002/acadeng/pag_cont05.htm Romanian Academy on the "natural and exact sciences".  So I am giving them the benefit of the doubt at this point. --Lquilter (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Lquilter, but that is pure nonsense. Referencing stuff just doesn't work that "benefit of the doubt" way, not in the real world - and wikipedia demands quite the contrary. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the individual making the assertion, not the other way round. Someone saying something is not evidence of anything, I'm afraid. And asking for evidence she didn't receive the prize is absurd - we're not going to find a source saying "Zoe Țapu did not receive the prize". "It's plausible" is not and never was our standard of evidence - by that metric, one could go around to all sorts of borderline AfDs and say "hey, did you know this person got this award? I have no proof, but take my word for it." That's not how we do things here, and given that your Wikipedia career is 2977 days old, the last 1866 of them as administrator, I'm stunned at your line of thinking.
 * Yes, the prize is an important one. The Romanian Academy hands out four prizes in agricultural sciences every year: the Ion Ionescu de la Brad Prize, the Traian Săvulescu Prize, the Gheorghe Ionescu-Şişeşti Prize and the Marin Dracea Prize. (Source, in case you were wondering.) IF Țapu received one of these, it's essential that we know WHICH she received, WHEN she received it, and WHERE the evidence for that is located. Otherwise, for our purposes, she never received anything, a stray comment by one editor notwithstanding. - Biruitorul Talk 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that we need to verify the prize -- obviously that's the key point establishing (or not) her notability. What I'm saying is that since an editor asserted she won the prize, then we need to verify or not that assertion.  Since the information isn't easily available by Google (I tried) then it will require a bit more work -- you know, probably going to a library and looking it up in a book.  Until someone can verify that they have looked up the prize winners and said they do or do not include Zoe Tapu, then I am personally not comfortable saying she is irrelevant just because nobody has bothered to put up the information about the prize in a google-able source.  "Lack of sources" doesn't mean "lack of sources because everybody is too lazy to do something off a computer."  It means no sources.  Thus far, no sources have been identified, but it doesn't appear (to me) that anything remotely approaching an appropriate search has been done.  So, to sum up:  It is the case that notability has been asserted; it is the case that google searching has not adduced the necessary sources; it is the case that a Romanian prize winner from the 1960s or 1970s is likely to be referenced in offline sources not online; the necessary offline searches have not yet been done.  (And yes, it is the case that people arguing for retention are supposed to do sources -- but so are the people arguing for deletion.) --Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And it still doesn't work like that. The person who claims x event happened must cite "a book" showing that it happened, and it would be the task of others to go and check that book, should they feel the need to. If the editor in question tells us that Zoe Țapu died because she was shot at short range by a drunken mentalist, should the event be trusted as real until we find a book saying it did not happen? Dahn (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the existence of the prize could be verified in Romanian Academy's printed yearbooks, that are available at the Romanian Academy Library, National Library of Romania and possibly (some of them) at the Library of Congress. I think no material from that period is (yet) available online. Until then, a notability tag could be added. If the prize is verified, the tag should be removed. If not, a new AfD might be started.Scientios (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly not the issue. The issue here is noting a claim at face value - incidentally, the only claim that, if true, would perhaps lift this article just a notch over the notability standard. Can you see where I'm going with this? (Though incidentally, such books are available online, through sources such as dacoromanica. No mention of her in connection to any Academy prize.) Dahn (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. You are in favor of deleting the article now.  If someone at some point later on shows up with a cite, the article can be recreated (or not) and the argument hashed over again at that point.  For the record, I am in favor of keeping until someone checks the Romanian Yearbook and/or some other source on the Award & says yay or nea.  Seems simpler to me.  ... But I think both our points are crystal clear to everyone else at this point, so I, at least, am bowing out now. --Lquilter (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just the point I was making above... Scientios (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Sources have not materialized. WP:CRYSTAL seems to be invoked on a prize of uncertain significance that may materialize (see WP:CRYSTAL). In the meantime, there's barely enough coverage to meet WP:V, and no verifiable indicator of notability. I have no objection to userfication and moving back into mainspace at such time as sources attesting to notability (not merely listing her as working on something that may or may not be significant) appear. Ray  Talk 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Commment: Can someone nominate the Romanian version for deletion and see if the Romanian editors delete it? If they do, fair enough, but if they don't I think notably met. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah! Well, that doesn't really count as an argument in establishing notability. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete As shrine of no encyclopedic interest. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Commment "first semi-dwarf winter durum wheat" in a reliable source needs some more attention I think. Scientios (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of women scientists deletion discussions. Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find the ref to the prize, I thought I had added it. Evidently not. I created a stub for INCDA, which voids my earlier argument about some testimony to what is a notable institution. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks In ictu oculi - So this means that you think she did not win the prize? If so, then I'll go with userify or delete as well. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment "This new type of wheat set the ground for further progress in durum wheat breeding in many countries". I think the article needs attention from an expert. Salmon, Vogel, Borlaug... does it ring a bell? Now we cross wheat and maize, but without the green revolution we would be nothing. Scientios (talk) 14:34, 13 March 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.