Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anghel Andreescu

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The result was Nom withdrawn, see here. TravellingCari 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anghel Andreescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Claims notability, but can't find any intellectually independent sources (at least in English). Article is a disaster; discovered the lack of sources while attempting to clean it up. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if these are for the same person, he appears to be notable. No question that the article needs to be cleaned up but that's not a reason for deletion. TravellingCari 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Wikipedia is not Monster.com. This looks like his CV and not an article. There isn't any formatting at all. The stuff isn't written discursively at all. It looks for all the world like someone took a big dump (of data) on us. There is nothing in what is presently there to keep. That the name might warrant an article is neither here nor there, as we are considering an article for deletion. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clean-up took about five minutes. AfD is not the answer when cleanup works just fine. I think it's still a weak keep but strong delete based on something that could be fixed...? TravellingCari 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Somebody with far greater Google-fu than I appears to have found some intellectually independent sources, which was my rationale for deletion. I'll withdraw my nom. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 18:54, 19 August 2008 (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.