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. Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodica Silvia Stan[edit]

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

Seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill academic to me. No independent sources, no indication of WP:PROF being met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added ww project to talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisional. It's hard to find a pass of WP:Prof when only 7 people have ever cited her work on GS [1]. Can WP:GNG help? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't think GS citations are helpful for this field, but there are also no significant book reviews and none of the books are widely held according to Worldcat. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:22, 5 March 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.