- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 07:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bartolomeu Constantin Săvoiu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Those of us who've seen this biography (courtesy of single-purpose account MLNR 1880 - probably Săvoiu himself) over the past couple of months have been amused by its pomposity and its vacuity, its hilarious pictures and high-flown rhetoric. However, it's time for it to go. Put simply, there is precious little evidence that Săvoiu has received attention in the form of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only possible morsel of notability would derive from his holding the lowest ranked grade of general in the Romanian Army. However, the spirit if not the letter of the relevant guideline seems to refer to active-duty generals rather than retired ones, which the article says he was. Moreover, no source is adduced to attest the veracity of this claim, meaning we can ignore it, and safely delete. - Biruitorul Talk 19:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The article is slightly entertaining, but there is nothing in there that has ever been picked up by a reliable source so that it may be verified -- one of the more amusing parts of the article is, in fact, that it is self-referenced to an outstanding degree. If kept on the flimsy basis of G-ral Săvoiu being, well, a general, please, please stubify. Dahn ( talk) 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Per
WP:SOLDIER, we usually keep all general officers. Yes, he was promoted after retirement, but being important enough for such a promotion seems to me to be sufficient. I agree that it's a terrible article though. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is merely an essay, not a guideline or a policy, and it's up to us to consider surrounding factors. One,
Traian Băsescu, in the first eight years of his term, had created
715 generals. Are some of those folks notable? Sure. All of them? Doubtful. Two, not only is coverage of Săvoiu in reliable sources essentially non-existent, there's no indication that his "importance" led to his promotion. It could just as likely be that he was a friend, or a friend of a friend, to the President or the Defense Minister. The point is, we really don't know why he was promoted, and there's no source to shed light on the matter.
WP:GNG, an actual guideline, trumps non-guideline
WP:SOLDIER. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is still glaringly absent. -
Biruitorul
Talk 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed it is an essay. However, it is generally respected by those who write articles on military officers. But I do take your point that if heads of state are abusing the system to promote their friends or supporters then they may not be notable purely by virtue of their rank. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- The trouble here is, though, that notability guidelines still require that the topic is verifiable in reliable sources as having passed the notability criterion. An article that asserts that its topic passes every notability criterion on Wikipedia can still be deleted if that assertion isn't verifiable anywhere — it's not the assertion itself that gets them over the bar, but the quality of sourcing that's available to support it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed it is an essay. However, it is generally respected by those who write articles on military officers. But I do take your point that if heads of state are abusing the system to promote their friends or supporters then they may not be notable purely by virtue of their rank. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is merely an essay, not a guideline or a policy, and it's up to us to consider surrounding factors. One,
Traian Băsescu, in the first eight years of his term, had created
715 generals. Are some of those folks notable? Sure. All of them? Doubtful. Two, not only is coverage of Săvoiu in reliable sources essentially non-existent, there's no indication that his "importance" led to his promotion. It could just as likely be that he was a friend, or a friend of a friend, to the President or the Defense Minister. The point is, we really don't know why he was promoted, and there's no source to shed light on the matter.
WP:GNG, an actual guideline, trumps non-guideline
WP:SOLDIER. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is still glaringly absent. -
Biruitorul
Talk 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. No prejudice against future recreation if someone can create a good version that actually cites real sources to properly attest his notability, but this version ain't it. Bearcat ( talk) 21:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notable figure in Romania. According to
this source (
Google translate) he was "awarded the National Order of Merit and the Legion of Honor of the French Republic". Legion of honor verified
here (Rank of Knight). These are significant honors per
WP:ANYBIO. More coverage about him
here alleging he was involved in "acts of deception, blackmail and more events", though he has political enemies in Masonic circles. More news coverage
here. More sources in
Romanian newspaper websites if requested. --
Green
C 02:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour is not a significant honour. It is approximately equivalent to an MBE in the British Honours System (i.e. one of the lowest honours the French state can give). Don't be confused by the "knight" bit. It's certainly not enough for notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Additional sources per
WP:GNG:
- www.romanialibera.ro ( Google translate)
- jurnalul.ro ( Google translate)
- www.romanialibera.ro ( Google translate). This source says he was a co-founder of a Romanian political party ALO (Alianta Lege si Ordine). See Political parties in Romania ( Google translate)
- -- Green C 13:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, "Alianța Lege și Ordine" has approximately no real-world notability. There's been one national election since it was founded, the European Parliament election last month, where it won an impressive zero votes. By contrast, the two-month-old People's Movement Party managed 346,000. - Biruitorul Talk 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of the wording of the guideline, we have not been keeping all (or even most) of the military officers at the rank of Brigadier General, though I think we have at higher ranks. (I've been told the equivalent UK rank to the extent there is one is not a general officer. The error, in my opinion, is in the wording of the guideline, not in our decisions here, and if we needed an example, here it is. . (though in any case active and retired should go the same way, as once notable a person remains notable).Quite apart from notability, the article is excessive indulgent, and would have to be started over--most the the material related is inconsequential. It seems, however, there is an actually notable person connected with him about whom we need an article -- his great grandfather Pitar Constantin Săvoiu, who among other things, was a member of the 19th century parliament . I note the French version of the article has been questioned, as well it might.
DGG (
talk ) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we've kept pretty much all brigadier-generals (and brigadiers, who indeed aren't general officers, although the rank is considered to be entirely equivalent by NATO) who've come up for deletion. In fact, I don't recall one ever failing an afd. I can see why an exception may be made for this one, however. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The links provided by Green Cardamom here conclusively demonstrate that Bartolomeu Constantin Săvoiu passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. România Liberă (romanialibera.ro) and Jurnalul Naţional (jurnalul.ro) are both reliable newspapers. The titles of the articles, "Venerabilul mason, generalul Săvoiu din partidul rezerviştilor serviciilor secrete: 'Voiculescu, Becali, PSD, PNL sunt prăduitori'. Vezi despre cine a spus că e cinstit" and "De vorbă cu generalul Bartolomeu Săvoiu. 'Securitatea vindea copii orfani la Paris!'", demonstrate that Bartolomeu Constantin Săvoiu is the articles' primary subject. Archiveurls for the three sources: 1, 2, and 3. Whether the subject passes WP:SOLDIER is immaterial since he passes WP:GNG. Cunard ( talk) 03:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Two of the above three sources listed by Cunard (and before by GreenC) seem to meet WP:GNG. (A third looks more like an interview to me, but two is good enough. for GNG.) I would not feel at all bad if someone stubbed this if it's kept, however. -- j⚛e decker talk 06:28, 26 June 2014 (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.