Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Vacariu

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Gabriel Vacariu}})

I like the sunglasses, but I have to say to the article creators, single-purpose accounts HARRYCRAIG and, er, Vacariu.bucharest: you haven't demonstrated that WP:PROF is met, not by a long shot. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

: Unfortunately I'm not seeing very many peer reviewed articles and very few citations. The page is badly formatted, but even looking beyond that, I'm afraid the subject isn't even close to meeting the standards of WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion. Delete JMWt (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

:Keep per WP:SUNGLASSES. Just joking. Delete, PROF has not been satisfied, despite his stuff on Academia.edu. GAB^Hello! 15:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

:I did a little clean up on the article, minor copy editing and formatting, added some ref tags - so at least you can see the bare url's for easier evaluation of those refs. There are zero results from HighBeam Research for "Gabriel Vacariu" and no results for any of his books either. A Google search though brings up multiple references to Vacariu questioning [http://philpapers.org/s/Gabriel%20Vacariu plagiarism or unbelievalbe similarities] with his work and others in that field.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=MawXPdYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Citation counts] too low to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 and no other evidence of notability. In particular, being a victim of alleged plagiarism is not grounds for notability unless that story is picked up by major news sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe in [http://philpapers.org/rec/VACTWV some parallel universe], but way below PROF in this one. Might be notable for [http://philpapers.org/profile/8792 paranoically accusing everyone left and right of plagiarism], if anyone but he was talking about that. EEng 03:02, 19 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.