 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 merge Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi; no consensus on Sean Smith (diplomat). The two guidelines which have been most cited in relation to this discussion are WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. WP:MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This doesn't seem to be of all that much relevance here, as the debate has centred around whether the subjects pass our notability guidelines.
Of the notability guidelines that apply here, WP:ONEEVENT is the most important, and indeed I thought its interpretation by the participants was the key to judging consensus. Its wording is fairly vague: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Some editors have interpreted this as pointing to deletion of all three articles, arguing that they have no notability outside the Consulate attack; some editors have interpreted it as pointing to keeping all three articles, as the press published general biographical details of the subjects following the attack. As the guideline doesn't give any specific guidance on which of these interpretations is to be preferred, I have treated both of these interpretations as valid.
There were other arguments put forward to keep the articles based on the subjects' achievements, such as Doherty's book and Woods's Bronze Star. However, editors generally did not that that these contributed to the subjects' notability under our guidelines.
With the exception of one "keep all" !vote, all the arguments were at least partially based on the notability guidelines. Because of the high percentage of valid arguments, and the room for interpretation in WP:ONEEVENT, I looked more closely at the numbers involved to find the most appropriate close. From my analysis of the !votes, I get the following:
- Keep all: 8
- Keep Smith, but not others: 4
- Merge/redirect all: 5
- Delete/merge/redirect all: 2
- Delete all: 6
I interpret these numbers to mean that there is a rough consensus that Doherty and Woods aren't notable, but that they shouldn't be deleted outright. Hence merge. In Smith's case, enough editors thought his prominence online before the attack was enough to keep the article that the numbers are a lot more even. Hence I am closing Smith's article as no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Glen Doherty[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Glen Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating:
- Sean Smith (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tyrone S. Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and these individuals are notable for nothing else than for being killed. They didn't hold senior positions and are intrinsically no more notable than anyone else who's died. Yes, they've received a lot of coverage, but that's normal these days for anyone killed in a notable event and doesn't mean they're notable themselves. Smith being well-known on online games doesn't really cut it. He's just a bloke who played a lot of computer games. That's not exactly unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Doherty and Woods were both Navy Seals. Doherty coauthored a book. Woods received a bronze star. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that WP:NOTPAPER and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi. IZAK (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- What absolute drivel. Where have I said that "only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP"? I have myself written many, many biographical articles on people below that level. I haven't raised any bar - I'm just stating what Wikipedia has already established about notability (i.e. that being a special forces operative, winning the Bronze Star or authoring a non-notable book does not make one notable). The "first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi"? Come again? Are you not aware that Gadaffi has already been overthrown? This had nothing whatsoever to do with the overthrow of Gadaffi. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that WP:NOTPAPER and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi. IZAK (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No branch of the armed forces, whether special forces, catering corps, or vehicle-maintenance technicians, are more notable than any others, according to our guidelines. Bronze Stars are not notable; we routinely delete holders of the Silver Star because only MoH winners are intrinsicly deemed notable. Doherty's worthiness in terms of writing a book does not really pass WP:AUTHOR. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Altairisfar (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Yes, they were killed a few weeks ago in that consulate attack, but nothing here makes these individuals notable, let alone stand out with regards to the attacks. Nothing else can be mentioned aside from their cursory personal and professional backgrounds. As Buckshot06 mentioned above, being a Navy SEAL does not confer notability, and the Bronze Star medal is a commonplace medal, especially in the field. Moreover, being a gaming mod doesn't to that, either. --MuZemike 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, no notability outside of their deaths. EricSerge (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all: per ONEEVENT. Mr. Vesey assertions aside, no part of Wikipedia notability criteria allows for the compilation of non-notable facts to somehow froth up a notable whole. Being a Navy SEAL is not notable. Writing a book is not notable. Tens of thousands of soldiers have won Bronze Stars; also not notable. 0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat). WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". Multiple sources are given that refer to him outside the context of a single event, and give reference to his prominence in the online community. Additionally, he doesn't meet the definition of a low profile individual as it is defined at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual. Membership of the Council of Stellar Management and a prominent role in the Somethingawful forums are both well documented, and response of both communties to his death lends evidence to his notability. This is exactly the sort of article you'd expect to read on an encyclopedia, and the article has already been viewed 59,000 times. Additionally, the Doherty should be kept as well. The combination of being a Bronze Star recipient, authoring a book, and dying in the manner in which he did combines to confer notability. Deleting a well-sourced, valid, and widely reported article on the subject of a major event because of bureaucracy is stupid. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody has suggested we should delete the article on the event! Simply that we should delete articles on individual victims. Are the men who died in this event any more significant than the many thousands who died in the Battle of the Somme, for instance? No, they're not. Should every one of the latter have articles? Clearly, no they shouldn't. So why should these three? They died, that's all. The event in which they died is notable, but they're no more notable individually than anybody else who's died. Redirects to the main article are fine, but not articles on all three individual victims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Err ... that he doesn't meet the definition of a "low profile individual" as set forth in an unofficial essay that hasn't come close to wide currency? Not what I'd call a valid ground to keep. As far as the stupidity of deleting articles goes, if you would like to attempt to swing consensus to overturn ONEEVENT, the proper place to do so is on ONEEVENT's talk page. This is not "bureaucracy," but adherence to our well-founded and consensus-approved notability criteria, however much you believe the subject is important. Ravenswing 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), as per Falcon8765 above: WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in his case. -- The Anome (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Falcon. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge/Redirect - Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sources have covered more than just his death, but it's pretty clear that none of the coverage would have occurred had he not died. I don't mean to sound cold, I just mean it's not like there was a USA Today article lined up for him on that day otherwise, for example. Perhaps he deserves a mention in the event article or something, but not his own. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge & Redirect to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Although the subjects meet WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO, the subjects also fail all but #5 in WP:SOLDIER, and also fall under WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Therefore, the content can be summarized, and a redirect to an appropriate section in the target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep All because there is incredible interest in this episode and in the lives lost. These articles are all well-researched and to the point and meet all the criteria of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, WP:BIO. Each of these killed individuals were personalities in their own right, that worked undercover, but have now been thrust into the intense scrutiny of the media and online discussions, particularly since the circumstances surrounding their deaths are a source of debate and controversy. See also the template ((2012 diplomatic missions attacks)) that lays out the importance of all the parts in understanding the "whole" of this complex picture, including all four Americans killed in the attack and the roles they played while in Libya. These were not "doormen" -- they were extraordinarily skilled and highly experienced fighting professionals. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable people as opposed to simple victims of a notable event? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider Barbara Robbins, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol. GabrielF (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Barbara Robbins was also the first female CIA employee (and the youngest) to be killed in action. The two individuals in question do not have such distinctions. A wild Rattata (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider Barbara Robbins, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol. GabrielF (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable people as opposed to simple victims of a notable event? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The point is that these are WP:N for the simple reason that the media is focusing on them strongly, the four dead Americans, killed in a big attack, and their names as individuals is constantly focused on by the media, as each day brings more WP:RS about them. This is not the case when anonymous fighting men die or when tens of thousands of soldiers die, no one knows their names, but in this case, their names are not only known but are being elevated to a higher level of attention with each passing day as the attack is investigated. In the case of Paul Revere, he was just a panicked horseman who deserved no special attention but he became famous and noteworthy because of the subsequent attention that was focused on him. There are many cases like that in military history where specific individuals are elevated above the rest. The world does that and in this case the media is ensuring that this continues with these four killed men, and no one can suppress and push aside the constant flow of WP:V WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. Do a Google search on any British or American serviceman killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you will find reams of stuff on each and every one of them. That's what happens in the modern information age. It doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make these men notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give some names of these other servicemen killed, so we can compare the amount of coverage on them? I don't think that just one of the many servicemen who died in normal combat would be as notable (and have as many sources) as this attack, which is getting a great deal of media attention. Sean Smith was not just a normal person killed; he had a great deal of influence online. And consider that the virtual reaction to his death is something that is very unique and now well documented with secondary sources. This kind of massive virtual mourning doesn't happen with any normal serviceman who gets killed. It isn't the fact that he got killed in a conflict that makes him notable, but it's this unprecedented virtual reaction by an online gaming community. Merlinsorca 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast; I can't put it any better than they did. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), I agree with Falcon8765 in this case. --Shadak (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to a 'Victims' section on U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. No evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Falcon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Sergecross73. A wild Rattata (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat) due to the unique reaction from online communities concerning his death. I agree with Falcon. Merlinsorca 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the WP:GNG exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did. The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for WP:GNG, he is definitely notable in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him. Merlinsorca 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of reaction exactly has he gotten "from the online world" though? Can you provide links/sources regarding this? Explain a little beyond "reaction" or "attention"? Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did. The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for WP:GNG, he is definitely notable in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him. Merlinsorca 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the WP:GNG exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per Falcon and Izak. Meets WP:GNG and is well referenced and organized. --Jethro B 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- merge to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi per WP:BLP1E Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sean Smith; not sure about the other two. Smith appears to have been a 'name' in the gaming world, even before this incident, so he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/merge to main article Per comments above, I don't see that they have any genuine notability distinct from this one event. Yes there's a lot of coverage but that's because of the attack and their deaths; yes, one of them co-wrote a book and one of them was a known online gamer, but would we have pages on them in respect of those things if they had not died? All sorts of people are killed in notable incidents, and it is then reported that they had done things in their lives and had respect in certain communities, real or web-based. In the absence of any of them becoming genuinely symbolic or iconic in some enduring way as a result of their deaths, I can't see they're notable in their own right. We're shading a bit to close to looking at this as some form of memorial opportunity - there's other places for that, not here. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Bennylin (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep All - WP:ONEEVENT concerns reliable sources covering the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the event promoted reliable sources to write about their lives, not only their placement in the event, but outside the event - from birth though death in significant detail. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply and arguments asserting it does are focusing on the motivation behind reliable sources reason for writing what they wrote, which is not part of WP:ONEEVENT. While it may be true that none of the coverage would have occurred had they not died the way they did, we all agree that the coverage did occur and that is where Wikipedia steps in to determine whether there is enough of such coverage for a stand alone article on the topic. Also, if the topics satify Wikipedia's notability requirements, then WP:NOTMEMORIAL indicate that the topic satisfies WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether these three are more significant than other who died, that is a WP:WAX argument. As for the topics having to meet some threshold of importance or significance, that was decided by the editors of the reliable sources in favor of the topics being important when the editors chose to publish the information on the topics in their reliable source. While being a Navy SEAL, writing a book, or earning a Bronze Star may not make the people stand out, the reliable sources writing about their lives show how important and significant these topics are despite the lack of position of or status reached by the people behind these biographical topics. The topics meet WP:GNG. Keep all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (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.
- 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. The arguments for deletion are persuasive. The sockpuppetry did not help, obviously - but even discounting that, I did not see any arguments for Keeping that passed muster with the GNG. All of the arguments in favor of keeping would be bolstered if the subject were more notable - a clear sign that he is not, as yet, sufficiently notable for inclusion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Viorel Chivriga[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Viorel Chivriga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been expanded since it was first deleted, but I still don't see the subject meeting the notability criteria.
In terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, we don't have that. We have a pastiche of passing mentions - here a quote about an opinion of his (on his employer's website), here passing mention of another opinion he expressed during a panel discussion, and that sort of thing. Yes, I know the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", but it's still telling that no independent sources seem to give him much in the way of significant coverage.
His political career I think doesn't rise to WP:POLITICIAN level. He was once listed in a party manifesto as a ministerial candidate, but never received the portfolio, nor was this apparently reported in outside sources. He's also deputy head of a party that is, by accounts, minor. Yes, its head is notable, but his position there doesn't make Chivriga a notable politician.
As an economist he also seems not that notable. We have a claim that he is "the most known economic expert in [Viitorul] institute", but the attached source doesn't substantiate the claim and, in any case, "best known economic expert at Viitorul institute" does not necessarily indicate notability as an economist. Other than that, we mostly have his views related to us.
I'm not denying that Chivriga has had a successful and respectable career in economics and made a foray into politics as well. But there's a line between, on the one had, a good career and, on the other hand, encyclopedic notability. He makes the first cut but not the second, I would submit. - Biruitorul Talk 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Keep - I actually cringed when I wrote keep. It appears he is a founding member of a political party started in 2011. Thus the lack of history of western English sources. See: Democratic Action Party (Moldova) And in Moldova this person is important and notable. The article needs serious work but I believe it can be made better and more Wiki like.
- WP:POLITICIAN 1.Politicians ... who have held ... national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
- The following two lines in the article meets this requirement.
- In 2009 he was called to be the Minister of Agriculture in the governmental team of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova, locally known as the PLDM.
- On November 6, 2011, the Democratic Action Party's Congress elected Viorel Chivriga as the Vice President of the party and the Head of Chisinau local party organization.
- Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your contribution misinterprets WP:POLITICIAN. As I noted in my nomination statement, Chivriga was merely proposed for the Agriculture Ministry, but never received the post, nor does the proposal appear to have been covered in any sources external to the platform of the party that proposed him. And no, being among the founders of a political party and its deputy leader (especially one with 8000 members) also does not automatically qualify one under the criterion, particularly as coverage of Chivriga in this role is marginal at best. As I've said, the founder, leader and central figure of the party, Mihai Godea, is notable, not least because he's a member of the Moldovan Parliament. But nothing of the sort applies in Chivriga's case.
- The "lack of history of western English sources" argument also doesn't hold water: nearly all the sources presented here are in Romanian, and a couple in Russian. The article is presumably written by a Moldovan. I myself, who know Romanian, have tried in vain to turn up significant, convincing coverage of the man.
- So no, he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PROF or, it seems, any of the GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep - In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
- In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
- Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
- In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such.Alexandru —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)- Alexandru Ecru has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Domain Flag (talk · contribs), the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep I checked the sources provided by Alexandru related to his media coverage and indeed he is a notable figure. I am for maintaining the article. In my opinion, there is no need of other sources, there are already more than 30. A good article about a Moldovian economist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Bujor (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Radu Bujor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Domain Flag (talk · contribs), the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. The sockpuppets probably will have brought more attention that they would have normally, so congrats on torpedoing the article yourselves :-) dangerouspanda 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep I come from Moldova. Alexandru is right in what he is saying. He is a public figure who is present in different media institutions. DangerousPanda can you please write below the translation you found?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Breaking Good (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and salt Sorry, but there is nothing to add, and the sockpuppet noise here is enough to make one sick to the stomach. It looks to me like the "start new article" hype has just now been striking Moldovan PR spammers. Or is there a LaRouche-type movement growing in Moldova? Sorry dude(s), but this doesn't even help your employer. Publish elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep The fact that Viorel Chivriga is not internationally acclaimed person does not necessarily mean that he is not famous in his motherland (Moldova). From the citations I can see that he appeared in many famous mass media releases. I found several interesting articles posted on the official website of the NGO he is working for. After reading the article, I think that the intention of the author was not to highlight the fact that he is a politician rather to present him as an economist who is also involved in politics. Levan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levan Bregvadze (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him. But the COI sock-spam is spectacular... Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Ok, let's it make it simpler. Indeed I used two different accounts to post comments. The last one written by Levan Bregvadze, is not mine. If the consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments than I will repeat my comments here and I hope that nobody will delete it:
- In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
- In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
- Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
- In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
- About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such.
- For Stalwart111, he is not a journalist to write the articles himself. In the press, Chivriga was cited by the journalists. He was asked about some aspects and issues related to Moldovan economy or politics. He stated his opinion, as Krugmann does for New York time, bloomberg or other media channels and was printed. It doesn't mean that Chivriga is like Krugmann, it means that Chivriga in Moldova has much more authority and is more notable than Krugmann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, at last count, it was at least four different accounts. So for a start, I would strongly recommend you have a read of WP:SOC and have a look at the note on the top of these pages each time you edit - "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust".
- That aside, it doesn't matter whether he is classified as an economist, a politician, a goat-farmer or a circus clown. There are plenty of people who fit into more than one category. But the subject has to at least meet WP:GNG - the general notability criteria for inclusion. My suggestion was that, in my opinion, he doesn't. I'm happy to accept that a couple of the sources provide (minor) coverage of him rather than by him, but a good many of those could not possibly be considered reliable sources anyway, which makes it very hard to wade through them and determine which should be used against the criteria at WP:GNG. One, as an example, is from a bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants - suggesting it is a reliable source for "news" is laughable. Strangely, it seems to be from some sort of officially sanctioned think tank. Others are clearly not in English. While non-English sources are fine, given the obvious conflict of interest editing, it is difficult for others to "take your word for it" that the sources meet the criteria for "significant coverage".
- At the moment, the questionable sources, blatant conflict of interest editing and ridiculous sock-puppetry have made it almost impossible to make an educated determination about the article. Most people will tend to assume that if reliable sources did exist and could be cited, the sock-puppetry, COI editing and silly games simply wouldn't be necessary. I'm afraid you have done yourself (and the subject) a great disservice. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's look at WP:GNG criterias and discuss them one by one:
- 1) Significant coverage - As it is said in WP:GNG, the sources should address the subject directly. I included 30 (and something) of sources. All sources provided cite mostly every sentence in the article so no original research issue could arise. If it is still less than you expect, I can provide 100 sources. 10 to each sentence from the article. His coverage in Moldovian Media is huge. To give you an example, see the google result on the 40th page :P Google 40th page(Chivriga) Nevertheless, this idea is not so promising because the same content can be found on different media channels. For instance, Chivriga discussed the issue of droughts in Moldova in PublikaTV and in Flux Newspaper. In both sources, Viorel Chivriga is cited as an economist. In both source, Chivriga expressed his suggestions towards a drought eradication plan. This proves the argument of secondary sources of information.
- 2) Reliable : "bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants". Can you be more explicit and provide here in the page of discussions the link to this webpage? Going forward with the criterias I cite once again the so-named WP:GNG. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". In my opinion, here it is stated very clearly that a person can be notable if he is present in all forms of media, see the links of media where he was cited: Jurnal de Chisinau is published three times per week with a circulation rate of 25 931 papers, Timpul de Dimineata is published daily with a circulation rate of 30700 papers, Adevarul is a national magazine published 3 times per week with a circulation rate of 13400 papers, he was also cited in other newspapers but it will be a too long post, so if you need more newspaper evidences do it by yourself. The information related to the circulation rate I obtained from HERE!. Let's see his coverage at TV Channels, he was present in the studio of the following Channels: PublikaTV was watched by 4 010 291 people during last month, Jurnaltv was watched by 7,3 million during last month. The info about how many viewing were registered you can see at Metrica.MD. Oh, almost forgot, the central TV Channel in Moldova: TVM. Are these sources anti-semitic? Not at all. Are they reliable? I guess these sources are the most reliable in Moldova from all the media organization the Republic has.
- 3) Sources- It was said already too much on this chapter. Once thing is clear, there are plenty of sources. Google it, Bing it, Yahoo it.
- 4) Independent of the subject: Most articles which I included in the reflist and in this short monologue are mostly written or published by independent organizations not affiliated to Viorel Chiviga.
- 5) Presumed: I like this criteria most because it leaves room for further discussion: Viorel Chivriga is presumed to be notable and now the editors should come up with a definite conclusion.
- About sockpuppets, Stalwart111 try to refute all I just have said and after this, I will give you an answer why did I use them. Cheers to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Appearing on television or being interviewed in a newspaper is not conclusive evidence of notability. Neither are search results or videos published on your own political party's website. And you don't get to place conditions on editors to reveal why you created a clutch of sockpuppets to save this article; you refrain from creating the socks in the first place and declaring your conflict of interest if you have one. Which, given that your only activity on Wikipedia has been related to Mihai Godea, Natalia Ciobanu (deleted) and Viorel Chivriga, who all just happen to be figures in the Democratic Action Party, seems a distinct possibility. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Domain Flag... Absolutely not - I will not help you justify your bad-faith use of sock-puppets or silly COI editing. You should have been blocked and we shouldn't be having this conversation - the fact that we are means an admin somewhere has decided you should have the right to defend your article. I will (begrudgingly, because it's disgusting) highlight at least one of the other "headlines" from www.mdn.md - the very first "reference" provided - "Jewish Supremacist Organization Lights Menorah in front of White House!". It's probably best not to go into the details of the article itself, and I don't think it's necessary. It is not up to others to find sources for your COI article - that's the whole point of the burden of proof. It might be that the article could be improved, and often editors will "pitch-in" and help. I regularly try to fix articles which have been brought to AFD in the interests of improving Wikipedia. But nothing about your efforts, your conduct or the subject (or the disgusting "sources" cited to support his notability) inspire me to trawl Google on the off-chance I might find something worthwhile. You have brought this upon yourself. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biruitorul are you sure you understood the WP:GNG criteria? Exactly, being cited in press, being present in TV channels, writing scientific papers, means to express your name to the public which gives you in turn notability. As I said I can give you many other newspapers or TV-channels with him being cited there, not only these which I mentioned before. Once again, I see phrases with no logical argumentation, for example, "videos published on your own political party's website". What website? Do you mean PUBLIKATV? It's a national TV channel...In case you have any proof, give it and don't lie. About my activity on wikipedia it's not your business. I write about what I want, as you do it by yourself. And You know why I didn't write any other articles? Simple, my first ones, were deleted for no reason. I will finish this one, and after that, I will write a new one maybe on other topic. Please give me the right to give you a lesson, you write about cats because you like cats, cats interest you, right? I write about the leaders of this organization because I like it, and because I think some of these leaders reached the level of notability to be on wikipedia. End of question.
- Stalwart111 I should have been blocked? This is your argument? Is it indeed all what you can? I wrote five paragraphs, explained in detail why this article stands the notability criteria, and you, instead of refuting them, in case you believe in ur position, you are telling me : I don't want to talk to you because you are bad. Like a 14 years old kid. I USED SOCK PUPPETS BECAUSE YOU THOSE WHO DELETE ARTICLES, INSTEAD OF ARGUING LIKE INTELLIGENT BEINGS, ARE JUST STATING TWO PHRASES : DELETE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET CRITERIA. I used the sock puppets because your arguments were like: "Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. ", "Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him.". What translation? What articles? Can you think before posting something? Do you know Romanian? Do you a single thing about Moldovan Economics or Politics to express an objective opinion? About the mdn.md wesbite, indeed you are right, the page is not reliable. I am sorry for this citation, I will delete it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.243 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The source material independent of Viorel Chivriga that I found says things like, "Romania's entry into the EU on 1 January 2007 and its withdrawal from a free trade agreement with Moldova will affect Moldovan exports given the fact that local producers will not be capable of quickly reorientating their exports, economic analyst Viorel Chivriga says", "Expert Viorel Chivriga of the IDIS Viitorul centre criticizes the ruling ...", "Economic analyst Viorel Chivriga said Russia's actions are likely linked to ...", and "Viorel Chivriga, of the IDIS-Viitorul think tank, says that after the 5 September (2010) referendum ..." There is not enough source material independent of the topic for a Biography of Viorel Chivriga Wikipedia article under WP:GNG. You could try a Commentary of Viorel Chivriga article, but such a subtopic usually is part of a biography article and doesn't seem to be justified under WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2012 (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.
Many thousands of University Societies exist and very few of them are notable, this is not notable. For one, none of the allumni or allumni group are notable. Also, the article has been written primarily by independent research. Thelonious McCabe (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)