Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasile Adam (2nd nomination)

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The first AfD was a dud. I'm not surprised no one cares about a random Moldovan woodcarver, but who knows, maybe we'll get a couple of votes and achieve consensus this time around. My reasons for deletion have previously been outlined, and I don't have anything in particular to add. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article needs improvement, but local RS exists (although finding them from an English-speaking vantage-point is a tedious hunt through Google-translate), even international interest. Given subject's long (30 years) and talented career, I recommend !voters be mindful of geographical/language bias. Pax 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pointed out before, and I will point out again: that article is by Andrian Adam, probably a relative of Vasile Adam and definitely the author of this article. Also, he was a mere intern when he wrote the article, which, additionally, is not quite neutral. Even if you consider none of this matters, WP:BASIC does require multiple published secondary sources — i.e., more than one.
  • As for this: it's not quotable. The fact that a foreign arts portal features a couple of Adam's works is nice, but there's no way of working that into an article, and therefore it's rather irrelevant.
  • So, yes, systemic bias, but just because a subject comes from a country that falls on the wrong side of the systemic bias divide does not mean he's exempted from relevant policies – in this case, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. I look forward to more concrete evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As stated above, article needs improvement but the subject seems to meet notability requirements. I suggest adding more references to the article even if they are foreign-language references.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SouthernNights, those references would be in Romanian, a language I know; I've searched in Romanian, exhaustively, and the only remotely quotable source is the Timpul article, which, as I've thoroughly explained above, represents a classic conflict of interest. It's a puff piece written by one Andrian Adam, very likely a relative and an intern at the paper, who then (under the user name Andrian Adam) wrote this article and used his published article as the main reference. Doesn't that seem just a bit, well, irregular? And as I've also noted, WP:BASIC requires "multiple published secondary sources.... independent of the subject". Even if the Timpul article were "independent of the subject" (it's not), it's the only quotable source. The "multiple sources" part isn't fulfilled, and can't be, as far as I can tell. The article cannot undergo "improvement" because "more references" do not exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In my oppinion WP:GNG is met: [This article] and [this article] are both WP:RS both treat the subject in depth and both should be considered independent of the subject, since they are both reliable sources and have editorial control. When in doubt the balance should tip to the keep.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2015 (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.