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. ✗ plicit 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Mihai Precup

Mihai Precup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

• There is no indication that the subject is in any way notable. He’s not notable per WP:POLITICIAN — never elected, and one of 200 appointed state secretaries, the vast majority of whom are not notable. He’s not notable per WP:PROF — there’s no indication he meets any notability criterion for academics. And he’s not notable per WP:ANYBIO, as I will explain.
• The article includes three references that are even vaguely independent and in-depth.
  • This, from the tabloid-y Economica, was published after he got his PhD from the Sorbonne and belongs to a time-honored genre: articles about Romanians who make good abroad. Given that its very title talks about what he hopes to do, it can safely be dismissed as a bit of crystalballing puffery.
  • This is a routine news item published when he was first hired as state secretary. Aside from mentioning his failed candidacy on behalf of a minor party (a detail that, strangely, did not make it into his article, authored by a single-purpose account), the background information is entirely sourced to his own website, which surely speaks to his level of notability.
  • This, from the arch-tabloid Antena 3, is another boilerplate item that appeared when he was sent from one bureaucracy to another. It’s largely sourced to a couple of quotes by the subject himself, who seems rather adept at self-promotion, but doesn’t seem to have many independent figures asserting his notability.
• (To underscore just how routine the hiring of a state secretary is in the press, see here and here and here and here and here.)
• In conclusion, there is simply no case for notability to be made here, as demonstrated by a close analysis of the sources presented. — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 00:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politicians, Finance, Economics, France, Luxembourg, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comments regarding sources:
  • We have 90-100 pages citing Economica
  • We have 550-600 pages citing Antena 3 CNN
  • See Antena 3 CNN#Controversies, in particular the footnoted references.

I previously removed the proposed deletion notice based on web translations of those two news sites. At the time, I found Antena 3's affiliation with CNN reassuring but after reading about the site's recent history and Biruitorul's comments, I'm not so sure. On the other hand, I see that the two sites have been widely cited here and I could find no previous discussions of either site's reliability in the Wikipedia namespace. If those two sites are reliable sources, I see this subject as notable. Otherwise, I don't see anything else establishing notability. I accept that a Romanian state secretary is not in itself a notable position; our decision should be based on reliable sources.

I would expect Mihai Prehup to have a Romanian Wikipedia article and he does: ro:Mihai Precup.^{( Google translation: [1])} It's tagged for notability.

I am undecided pending others' comments.

-- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 01:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Personally, I wouldn’t cite Antena 3: whatever facts they may have to report are also reported by other, less problematic, sources. But that isn’t really the point. The main point is that the level of coverage — “economic expert gets appointed to fairly routine economic post” — is simply not indicative of notability, regardless of who’s reporting it. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Maybe in the future more sources about this person will appear, but right now they don't seem notable. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk) 13:36, 14 November 2023 (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.