Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Plugaru

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Plugaru

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

No independent coverage demonstrates the subject's notability: a self-published site and an advertisement for a puppet show will not suffice. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references I included in the article show that:

This writer has a dedicated page on one of the biggest literary Romanian websites, but also a few other blogs
This play writer wrote a play which was set and is played at puppet theaters from Romania and Moldova
This poet published a book with poems and coloring drawings for children.

You can also find plenty of articles about this writer on local newspapers, blogs, online magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconValley (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) povesti-pentru-copii.com is hardly a reliable source. It's a personal website where one individual reprints children's short stories.

2) Having a play performed, or having a book published, is not by itself evidence of notability. At least one criterion from WP:AUTHOR needs to be fulfilled.

If you'd like to demonstrate the subject's notability, please show that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And please keep in mind that self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable as sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can say that about almost any person, that those sources don't prove notability. The way I see it - this is an attempt to discredit this author and undermine her contribution made to the Romanian culture in general and literature in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconValley (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If such sources are presented, notability is established; if not, and they have yet to be, it isn't. That is the core issue here, not your perceptions about a non-existent agenda on my part. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to speak of in reliable independent sources. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been looking through the Povești pentru copii (Stories for children) site, and would express a concern about some of the illustrations there in the Emilia Plugaru works section - there are what would appear to be copyright violations there of Garfield (himself) and Shrek (Donkey), and I have grave suspicions about a rabbit (looks Disney) and a pinkish cat (also looks Disneyish) and possibly others. This is not directly relevant to Wikipedia (they are not posted here), but the subject being discussed here is supposed to be an illustrator of her works. (The stories associated to these pictures are not translations of the texts of stories involving the 'real' subjects of the pictures.) Are these official copies of the stories, or is this a pirate site, which should of course be removed from being a link on Wikipedia? If it is a site that uses official copies, why aren't illustrations by Plugaru used? (There are similar copyvios (some Disney) illustrating the works of other authors there.) Peridon (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke links to the copyvio site. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 (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.