Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidia Vianu (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Lidia Vianu}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Lidia Vianu}})

Let's begin by running through the footnotes and showing why they fail to show the subject meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

• Footnotes 2, 6-16, 18, 20-22, 26-28, 30-31 and 37-38 refer to Wikipedia articles, which cannot be used to source another Wikipedia article.
• Footnotes 1 and 23-25 make no mention at all of Vianu.
• Footnotes 5 and 17 have Vianu's name at the top of the page, but cover her in no further depth than that.
• Footnotes 29 and 32-36 are works translated by Vianu into Romanian. That doesn't necessarily confer notability upon her, especially considering that these reviews are hosted on the website of the press she directs.
• Footnotes 40-42, in a similar vein, are about Vianu's own books, but being hosted on (essentially) her own website, these don't count as independent coverage.
• Footnote 19 confirms she is a member of Romania's PEN club, but we have no indication of whether that implies notability. Given that its US counterpart has 3,300 members, probably not.
• Footnote 3 confirms she was the joint recipient of a prize, but we have no independent confirmation of even this prize's notability, much less of the notability of its recipients.
• Footnote 4 mentions two courses she teaches. Teaching courses does not a notable academic make.
• Footnote 39 refers to a personal project of hers, but the coverage is neither independent nor significant.

I can't fail to mention that this article was started by Bezeauainfuriata, whose only other contribution is an article on Vianu's colleague C. George Sandulescu, and edited by Lidiavianu, whose only other substantial contribution, aside from touching up her autobiography, was to edit the article on her colleague, Sandulescu. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per the nom's thorough analysis of the footnotes. It's clear that someone's trying to puff up the article and failing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 25 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
• Weak delete. All the wikipuffery makes it difficult to evaluate how notable she actually is; thanks to the nominator for spending the time to go so carefully through the footnotes. [http://www.zf.ro/ziarul-de-duminica/interviu-lidia-vianu-as-lua-o-de-la-inceput-si-as-face-totul-mult-mai-bine-5386312/ This interview] looks like a reliable source, but it's difficult to use as the basis of an article because the questions are not so much about her history as about her attitudes. Other than that, the only thing we can source is that she is the winner of a prize. That doesn't seem like quite enough to me. But I could be persuaded to change my mind if additional reliable sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of the problems with the article, she is a widely and legitimately published Romanian academic and creative writer. The article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

::I would be happy to keep if better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (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.