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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Scarlat[edit]

Adrian Scarlat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Previous AfD marred by extensive socking. Closing admin stated that there was no prejudice against immediate re-nominating, recommending that the recent work on the article by DGG should be taken into account. However, DGG did not add any sources, nor did any come up in the debate. Hence, the original AfD rationale still stands: "Deceptively sourced article. References are to YouTube, Scribd, dependent sources, or show that the subject has written some books. However, not a single source discusses the subject (or his books) in-depth (or even in-passing). Some references do not even mention the subject. No evidence that this meets WP:BIO (or WP:ACADEMIC for that matter)." Pinging non-blocked participants to previous debate: @Arthistorian1977:, @Gilabrand:, @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, @DGG:, @Xxanthippe:, @Onel5969:, and @Agricola44: (hope I didn't forget anybody, please ping as needed). Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still pro-Delete, since I didn't find any proper Hebrew sources, supporting notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am still pre-Keep after editing the article to remove puffery, reorganizing it to align with other biographical articles, and adding material. The man is clearly notable in his field, and won awards for his work. He taught at universities, published a large number of books and manuals, was the head of a committee that drafted the Israeli standard for building regulations in connection with earthquake risk and was cited by Haaretz, a reliable source by all accounts. It is simply incomprehensible to me why anyone is pushing for the removal of THIS article, which is perfectly fine, when there are hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are pure crud and no one could care less. Is there some personal grudge at work here? Or perhaps some political bias? Beats me...--Geewhiz (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your assuming good faith... As for your argument: yep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Haaretz article is that it mentions him briefly as a head of committee in 70s and that's all. Also, no extensive information about him is available in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Delete. The attributes listed by Gilabrand above (published books, taught at university, received awards etc) have never been sufficient by themselves to demonstrate notability (and we don't need the oblique accusations of bias). Rather, one must be noted, which would mean his research is highly cited (it isn't), his books are widely held or widely used (they're not), his awards are highly prestigious (they're not), etc. (see 1st AfD for documentation). Scarlat appears to have been a competent engineer who did interesting work, but that does not equate to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Worthy professional but work has achieved little notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Almost completely unreferenced when you subtract the many unreliable sources. Prhartcom (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only things in here that point towards notability are the book Approximate Methods in Structural Seismic Design (unlike the others, by a major publisher) and the honorary doctorate. But neither is enough, especially in the absence of major and reliably published book revews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps at best since I voted at the first Afd also that it was still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 3 May 2016 (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.