Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Sorina Munteanu

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. ✗plicit 03:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Sorina Munteanu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an additional source here. I don't think that's enough for WP:NBIO though. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cocobb8’s new source, and also this both of which cover her and her career in depth. Cocobb8, any chance you’re a Romanian speaker so you can add the information from those sources to the article. While the standard is “sources exist in the world” not “sources are currently cited in the article”, having them in there might stop this happening again…

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdum4242, did you notice that Cocobb8 might have found the source but they aren't arguing to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I did notice that, but also thought that was because the standard was that there needed to be more than one solid source, from different outlets, which was why they were unsure? When you put theirs together with mine, together with the source cited in the article as currently written, you get three seperate sources, focused on her rather than passing mentions, separated by 8 years giving coverage over time? Also, since the deletion recommendation was on BLP grounds, I checked the applicable guidelines and they were that the article ticked off

The article doesn’t seem like Original Research, it seems to be written in a NPOV, and nothing in it was contentious or derogatory that I could tell. That just leaves Verifiability, and passing notability, with WP:MUSIC suggesting international touring was a strong sign of potential notability. Verifiability would depend on whether the sources the information was found in were reliable, and… they seem to be? Although not speaking Romanian I had to rely on Google translate there.

Am I missing something obvious? (and also thanks again for taking the time to walk me through this, when I can see from all your work on this project that you’re super busy). Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242, the strong sign of notability is good. Are you suggesting it is enough? They're not quite the same thing. While you might decide to hold off on nominating an article for deletion because there is a "strong sign of potential notability", by the time we're at AfD what we want to see is actual evidence of notability. You're welcome to argue that the evidence we have is indeed enough evidence, or that it's close enough to "enough evidence" that the strong potential for further sources clinches it for you. Those are valid AfD positions. But "there isn't enough here yet, but I bet there is more out there" is usually not taken as grounds for a keep. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Not suggesting that it’s enough, just running through the steps step by step. If it had failed WP:NMUSIC completely I’d have stopped there. And if the articles only mentioned local performances inside Romania, I would err on the side of her not being notable, because it’s likely at that stage that there are no sources I’m missing, whereas a verified decade long career in numerous countries, there’s a much greater chance there are other sources out there in the world. Likewise, while they don’t strictly count for notability, there were 40-50 sources with passing mentions of her performances / longer mentions from non-independent sources as well as the three independent sources that I think DO count - the sheer number of them, again over years, makes me think it’s likely that there are better sources out there that I’m just missing, especially since google isn’t great for non-English sources / a lot of arts sources are physical rather than online. Which, again, isn’t proof, but if I hadn’t seen all those extra sources, I’d have been more likely to err on the side of her not being notable, assuming I had found what was out there. Which is why I voted delete for other article which lacked all this. GIVEN all that, I was arguing along the lines you suggested - the three sources seem like enough evidence for me, especially with the added strong potential for further sources. But I’m not dogmatic about it - this was an orphaned nomination, so I thought I would at least take a look to avoid a delete close / re-listing for lack of discussion. If anyone else wants to argue deletion, I’m all for them to do so, discussion to reach consensus is the whole point of the exercise after all. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (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.