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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Ghilascu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and Salt given it was not only deleted at the first AfD, but then also G4 last month and here is the advertising with advertising sources once again, thus affecting the community's efforts, time and attention with no actual improvements; everything shown and listed is simply published and republished company announcements, PR, listings and other triviality hence not satisfying our policies. At best, given the repeated attempts at advertising, the only path now is AfC. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on it I've cleaned up the article by copyediting, adding inline citations, deleting unsourced content, and trying to generally improve the article (and remove a lot of...advertise-y statements). I think it can be fixed to the point that it will become a good article. Just my opinion of course. At least give it a little more time to improve. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nerd1a4i's changes have improved this to the extent that it's almost unrelated to the article I previously deleted, and this now looks viable. WP:G4 is a mechanism by which we can delete pages which have been previously deleted at AFD, not a mechanism by which we must. ‑ Iridescent 09:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major improvements to the article. Brad v 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. for further rewriting. The recent improvements have moved it into the form of a WP article, but it still remains self-indulgent autobiography. I think there is probably notability there at a ntional level, but I cannot judge because of unfamiliarity the the country and the language. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tend to agree with DGG that there's a decent chance the subject is notable, but as it stands, out of 81 references, a dozen are from the news portal run by Ghilașcu (by the way, that's how her name is spelled), discriminare.md, and a good deal more come from non-independent or poor-quality sources. So this should go back to the drawing board, as it isn't ready for mainspace. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the improvements made to the article --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.