This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Romania. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Romania|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Romania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to
Europe.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Comment - I would like to port some of the information from this article to the future 'parent' article. Do we have an example of how a 2nd team is described as part of the main article of a team?
LaUr3nTiU (
talk)
13:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Hi @
Boleyn, not sure if this is the right place to chat about this. I've added a few sources for the stadium and I believe it should be kept, as it's used by
Liga IV and
Liga III teams to play
Cupa României matches, along other events as well. It's arguably the 2nd most used stadium in
Galați.
LaUr3nTiU (
talk)
13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep It's okay for a stub article, and sounds like it could easily be expanded with far more content than what is there.
Govvy (
talk)
18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ridiculously short article that fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign.
Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one.
-1ctinus📝🗨16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :(
-1ctinus📝🗨17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like
[1]); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply