Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Ţâbuleac

Ion Ţâbuleac

Ion Ţâbuleac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Person not notable, being known only for dying in unclear circumstances during some rioting, which is not enough per Wikipedia:N/CA#Victims. The article is also very politicised, with the claims of the family being presented as facts in the lead Anonimu (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reason:

Eugen Ţapu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valeriu Boboc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• keep The person is notable; he is one of the three victims of the 2009 Moldova civil unrest (Twitter Revolution). The characterization "some rioting" is, IMHO, a serious misinterpretation. The article definitively can and should be improved, however. I suggest to allow time for that. Dc76\^talk 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Important note: To simplify the deliberations here, I performed two edits: [1] and [2]. Basically, I added the relevant info from the articles of Eugen Ţapu and Ion Ţâbuleac to the article 2009 Moldova civil unrest. Conclusion: you can safely now redirect these two, and copyedit the article about the event. In Valeriu Boboc, I removed info that exists elsewhere. This is the only article for which I ask time to improve, please. Dc76\^talk 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to 2009 Moldova civil unrest: These three men are known only for their deaths during the riots. This meets "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim" from Wikipedia:N/CA#Victims straight on. Besides, all three articles were obviously written by someone who has an ax to grind against the Greceanyi cabinet, failing WP:NPOV and so on. In case of Ţapu, the only connection seems to be that he died on the same day (and not in police custody as the article claims). So, the articles should be deleted unless their notability can be otherwise asserted. --Illythr (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to 2009 Moldova civil unrest - these are valid search terms (their names appeared widely), and each of their status as one of only three dead makes them stand out. I don't think they're notable enough for stand-alone articles, but I do think there's scope for expanding our coverage on them in the article on the unrest, and outright deletion is a step too far. And if the segments on them grow too big in that article, we can readily go back and recreate the ones I'm suggesting we merge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This would be a reasonable compromise for Ion Ţâbuleac and Eugen Ţapu. I would agree to merge the content of these articles into a section of 2009 Moldova civil unrest. But Valeriu Boboc is a standalone. He is more notable. "does not automatically qualify as being notable enough" =/= "does not qualify as being notable enough". The central word there is "automatically". As for who started the article, there is a general wiki policy: discuss content, not editors. So, in view of this suggestion by Biruitorul, I would rectify mine: keep only Boboc, and merge the other two. Dc76\^talk 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The central phrase is unless their notability can be otherwise asserted. I think Biruitorul's suggestion would be a best fit: create a section "Casualties" in the civil unrest article and make a short summary about who, when, how plus controversy. --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That is exactly what I am supporting to do for 2 of the 3. Dc76\^talk 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge all - not individually notable by a long shot, but may be valid search terms for 2009 Moldova civil unrest (if the latter option is chosen, I also want to say police, if not salt, the redirects). As a side note, advocating the deletion of these articles is not a political statement (as politicized as they obviously are); the main issue is notability, and these gentlemen, for all the grief etc., are only notable for their association with one event. Creating such articles therefore contradicts several guidelines and policies. Dahn (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Liviu Librescu still exists, although he wasn't notable before the day he died. The difference is made also by their behavior on the day people died. Librescu committed an act of heroism, saving the lives of about 15 students with the price of his own. In this situation, there is a clear difference between Valeriu Boboc (notable during the events) and Eugen Ţapu and Ion Ţâbuleac who were not notable, and whose entries should be redirects. Dc76\^talk 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I plan to discuss flaws with every other article (WP:OTHERSTUFF), but Librescu's article seems to be warranted by various other lifelong notability criteria, regardless of the reason why it was started. The simple fact that it was started on or around the day the man died bears naught on the notability - it's the article's informative quality (real or potential) that does. As for the difference between Boboc and the other two gentlemen, I for one don't see it. Dahn (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, please do allow time to improve this article. Another AfD can be started about him later down along the line if you see not significant improvements. Dc76\^talk 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict): It seems Dahn can read my thoughts - I wrote a post that said essentially the same, but was too late. In short: 1) Librescu was clearly notable before he died. 2) Please provide arguments for Boboc's notability here, as I haven't seen anything that assigns him a greater role in the events than dying due to police abuse. --Illythr (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I'm discussing the potential informative quality of this article. It is, and likely to remain, an article solely dedicated to a man who died in mysterious conditions, with all the info leading up to that. This death is not the moment when Boboc came to our attention or wikipedia's, it appears to be the moment when outside sources began acknowledging him - his entire biography as reconstituted by the sources is a footnote to his death. Him having done some things before being (let's say) killed is not the same as Librescu or Abraham Lincoln or Barbu Catargiu or Nicolae Iorga or even Sergey Kirov doing some things before they were killed. It is therefore still a "one-event" notability - which: a) contradicts our guidelines; b) means that he is already covered with all encyclopedic material in the article on that one event. And if the argument is that he also did something else during that event other than dying, think about whether any of that would still be viewed as independently notable had he not died by the end of it. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that you repeated arguments that are equally valid for Librescu? I see no point to continue talking about an issue when you seem immune or ignorant of what I say. Is it that difficult to allow a little time to develop an article? Have it your way with the article, if you insist. But please do not complain later when others hit you below the belt. I was sympathetic to you in the last such situation, and will continue to be so in the future (because that's just right, doesn't matter who's involved). Enjoy hitting third parties for what others do to you, if that is what you like. Dc76\^talk 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the arguments are not "equally valid" for Librescu, who would have been notable (though probably not very notable) regardless of his death. The rest: a) please don't take this personally, and please don't theorize AfD debates as vendettas (particularly when I have no beef with you or even third parties). Believe me when I say I didn't even bother to check who started or edited the articles. As for "hitting below the belt", whatever context and whatever logic, I simply have no idea what you mean; b) I commented in good faith on the fact that these articles we're discussing show no independent notability of the topics - not because of the way they are (or not just because of the way they are), but because I can't see sources asserting this, whether used in the article or out there in the real world. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "hitting below the belt" was when you insisted on Boboc. Given that Anonimu and Illythr openly opposed him having a separate article (both for ideological reasons, yet by far not identical for them two), your insistence on Boboc effectively put me in the corner. All I asked was time to be able to develop this one article. I can not physically do it in 1-2 days before the AfD is closed. You could have said: "ok, let's give a chance to this article for 2-3 weeks, and look at it again then from the point of view of notability". By insisting on "I want to see radical changes now, this minute", you effectively sealed the fate of the article. You knew very well I don't have physically the time to improve it in 1-2 days. But you chose to insist. You rule the day, of course, but you have showed lack of tactfulness. This is a typical example when you chose credit for AfD in detriment of constructiveness and tact. There was absolutely nothing to prevent another AfD in 3 weeks, but you chose the radical approach "let's hit this guy hard in the belly today". Dc76\^talk 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, this has almost nothing to do with the articles we're discussing. The two points that I can address without giving apparent credit to a conspiracy theory are the following: per WP:BURDEN and not just, I don't see any reason for having repeated AfDs for what, to me (and feel free to disagree), looks like a clear-cut case (the alternative would be illegitimate and tiresome); the issue of what changes I would supposedly like to see is, in this case at least, irrelevant - no matter what you think should have been done with one or all articles, my (substantiated) opinion is that the sourcing is a problem, and it's not gonna go away - we're talking, and this is the fourth time I'm writing this, about what the sources, cited or otherwise, have to say about Boboc. Meaning that the article is not warranted by the policies and guidelines, which no amount of effort is going to improve upon. The rest: I'm sure you give yourself some time and allow yourself to take some distance from the issue, you'll see that your accusations are uncalled for and do your point no service. Dahn (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I find Dc76's accusation that the application of WP policy in such a clear cut case was motivated by ideology simply disturbing (And quite a strong hint on how the said user see WP editing). But even more disquieting is his publicly expressed dissatisfaction than another editor gave precedence to WP guidelines over real life political disagreements. He seems to have learned nothing from WP:EEML.Anonimu (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• End of story. Dc76\^talk 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)