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. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serban Marin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Several reasons for deletion. First, it's an autobiography. Second, the man is not especially notable, with many of his hits appearing on forums and self-published sources. Third, this page too is largely sourced from his homepage and the defunct (and presumably self-published) Crusades Encyclopedia. Fourth, given that he's only published one book and that three others are "in project", it seems he's using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes. Fifth, his position as a mere department head at the National Archives of Romania does not render him especially notable - if he were head of the archive, maybe, but not just another cog in the machine. Perhaps individually, these might not be strong enough reasons for deletion, but put together, I think they make a compelling case. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See this Google scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the beef? Sure, he's written some papers; we didn't need Google Scholar to tell us that. But does that bring him any closer to satisfying WP:PROF or WP:N? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but seriously trim. I wouldn't hold it against the fellow that he created his own article, but it needs to be a lot shorter. Wikipedia is not a vanity site. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF or more generally WP:BIO. Google Scholar returns four hits with no citations. Google News returns no hits. A search on a few academic databases returns no hits, much less citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eric Yurken. Note to nom: the fact that an article is an autobio is NOT a valid reason to delete. --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• However, it is a strong indicator of non-notability, and non-notability is a good reason for deletion. Why should an encyclopædia have an entry for somebody who can't even get anybody other than him to write a biography of him? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a CV site; WP:NOT a book promotion site. Let the man become actually notable before there will be an article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: maybe, rushing to get an entry of a young researcher published is a form of recentism? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than enough major publication for notability. His notability is not from the position at the National archives, though a professional position there is equivalent to a professorial appointment at a university & head of a division probably head of a department. . His notability is as a scholar, and shown by his publications. All we need to do to the article is remove the lists of minor publications. We do not delete articles for COI, and if people write too much, we edit the articles. 40 years is a young researcher? 7 books is just becoming notable? One doesnt expect Gbooks to have many 20th c. specialized publicationsin this language , nor G Scholar. their strong anglophone bias is what Wikipedia tries to avoid. DGG (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's only actually written and published one book, not seven. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 02:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be nothing more than a list of everything he's written that the public can (supposedly) buy. spider1224 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a spam CV. Subject has not swum out of his small pond. No Google News hits, for example. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:46, 21 November 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.