Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriela Pachia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 00:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriela Pachia

Gabriela Pachia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Even more than the entry on Ion Pachia-Tatomirescu, whose entry is also up for deletion, there are no reliable sources discussing the work and life of Gabriela Pachia, and the two articles (like their equivalents on two other wikipedias) appear to be the results of self-promotion. A google search for them only lead one to blogs and other sources that accept any contributions, themselves of no notability or reliability whatsoever. The one more relevant link I was able to find leads to the University of Bucharest Library, where one of their books is featured (probably as the result of a donation). No reliability, no notability, no neutrality. Dahn (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article gives an extensive bibliography of published original works and translations by this author. The external links give contributions to an established journal and a review of her latest book. She seems to meet the standards for inclusion as a published author in a number of independent sources. I also like how the article helps counteract WP's bias towards the Anglosphere. Admittedly she's not the most important author, but she's at least as notable as some of the other Romanian poets who have articles in the encyclopedia. Casey Abell (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment First of all, what the article gives is a list of books, all published by an obscure publishing house. There is no "established journal" in the external link: just two articles in a couple of magazines that cannot be considered reliable sources - both of them are basically blogs which campaign for fringe ideas such as the "Dacian religion". There is not one mainstream Romanian source which would take the Pachias into consideration.
The supposed bias does not begin to be taken relevant here. For one, I am Romanian. Secondly, we are talking about the relevancy these people have in Romanian culture - it borders on zero. Dahn (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She is an established author and has been for a number of years. This article should not have been nominated. The article itself is a untidy, so need needs cleaned and rewritten in places. scope_creep (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree on the tidying. I did a lot of wikifying but the article could use some more cleanup. By the way, although this really isn't relevant to the AfD, her poems (at least in English translation) seem much better to me than a lot of other recent poetry. Casey Abell (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me establish something: the journal cited there is in reality a fanzine supporting notions from far right campaigns to homeopathy. it is not at all established, and simply not cited in any other form, by any reliable source. In fact, that page is her blog - it says "Jurnalul meu" ("My Diary") and "scris de Gabriela Pachia" ("written by Gabriela Pachia"). Gabriela Pachia posted those lyrics to be published there, and her (or her similarly-"notable" husband) also contributed the wiki article - meaning that the link's presence here is the result of self-promotion. If I start writing poetry (even good poetry) and post it on the web, do I become instantly notable? Dahn (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant, unsourced self-promotion. No neutral evidence of notability. Biruitorul (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-promotion of a self-published author. The "Aethicus" publishing house publishes only books by Pachia/Tatomirescu, so it's likely their own company. bogdan (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence for any third party sources for notability. It is difficult to take the reviews at their face value/. DGG (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dahn. Notability not established by extensive coverage in reliable sources, no evidence of any reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom — non-notable, no reliable sources, self-promotion. Turgidson (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established, complete lack of reliable sources on the subject. - Andrei (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the arguments provided above. Notability not established. --Crusio (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:52, 20 November 2007 (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.