Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Gagea

:{{la|Adrian Gagea}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adrian_Gagea Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Adrian Gagea}})

Evidence of notability is slight indeed. Let's look at the external links. [http://www.osim.ro/despre/despreo.htm This one] doesn't mention the subject at all. [http://www.unefs.ro/custom_images/file/cv/Gagea_Adrian.pdf This] is his CV. [http://www.athlestats2010.izihost.com/Files/top_50_shot_put.pdf These] [http://www.fisu.net/en/Honorary-members-3428.html two] are directory entries, with the further strike against the first one that it's someone's personal webpage. And finally, [http://adevarul.ro/locale/tulcea/aventurile-marelui-explorator-jacques-yves-cousteau-delta-dunarii-explorat-zona-salbatica-romaniei-transmis-povestea-lumii-intregi-1_555ec8ddcfbe376e35767ec5/index.html this] quotes him a little, but actual the topic of the article is Jacques Cousteau, with whom our subject was briefly and tangentially associated. Taken together, I think it's pretty clear the subject fails WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO and any other relevant policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: as would-be autobiography. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N as pointed out by nominating editor. Quis separabit? 01:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as the applicable notability has no obvious signs, article simply not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of sources to support notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• The fact that one of the top three awards claimed to have been won is from the American Biographical Institute makes me unwilling to research this further. Awards are issued by that organisation for giving them money, not for notable achievements, so, even if the subject is notable, it is clear that this article was created for the purposes of promotion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.