Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sava Grozdev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There is rough consensus leaning towards permitting this article a place on Wikipedia. As expressed below, signs of notability are evident, but they need to be set in stone with reliable sources (not an easy task for somebody for whom sources may be in a non-English language). In addition, I recommend a rewrite: the article still reads a little like a résumé, which is contrary to the standards of encyclopedic material we hold on the project. Anthøny 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sava Grozdev

Sava Grozdev (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a resume, not an article, and it isn't at all clear that the person meets WP:BIO. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Author just copy-pasted their resume; speedy would be WP:BIO; beyond that, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Yngvarr 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Weak keep Based on the current incarnation, I'm going to lean towards keep. I'd prefer to see some inline cites for his works, and more information on the awards he's received. Given that context, it's possible he could satisfy several of WP:PROF. Yngvarr 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This man has solid credentials, but no asserted notability, and even if he did have some, much of the information on that page should be savagely deleted. Personal info does not belong in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and gut (gut and keep?) Seems a notable academic in his country and perhaps elsewhere. See [1] and [2]. Certainly as notable as many US academics whom I have seen with articles (please don't point me at WP:ATA). Stubify. --Alfadog (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just a resume, belongs on Monster. STORMTRACKER 94 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A number of editors want this deleted because of its content. Content can be easily changed (that is what we do here). When I read the CV, it was clear to me that this person might (might) meet notability guidelines here if only the most minimum requirement. But each editor must draw his own line as regards notability and, for me, this fellow is likely on the keep side of the line. Or at least close enough for me to give the article a chance as a stub. --Alfadog (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to above I'd be willing to strike my delete in favor of a keep if the issues with the article can be addressed. Right now, it's just a resume. Yngvarr 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I will gut it a bit later today, maybe this evening as I cannot do that now (work calls). Anyone else is also, of course, free to stubify it and I have a couple of decent links in my vote above for a bit of content. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:David Eppstein has cleaned up the article (he has my thanks for picking up my slack.) --Alfadog (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable scholar - [3]. Lobojo (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: no real assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten with a reasonable outside reference(s). Notability of a living scientist should be always decided from an independent assesment of the subject by the scientific community, not guessed up here by number of ghits. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: With 77 hits on the Bulgarian Google [4] it doesn't look as if this fellow is as notable as all of that. Obviously some references for the article's numerous assertions would be helpful. Are there any?  RGTraynor  19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why do you think a search in the Latin alphabet would give a sensible result for a Bulgarian? There are plenty of potentially reliable sources to read through here before you can claim that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems to me that the 2003 Sign of Honour-thing is listed twice accidentally. It's got to be the same award. But it reads like an important national honour -- presented by the President and all -- and if so would meet the WP:BIO criteria for an important national honour. However, all of this is unreferenced, so... I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Major award from a national academy is prima facie evidence of notability. Need for references is handled with templates asking for people to produce references; it's not a reason for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes, or a Who's Who. The only even apparent claim to notability is the subject's chestful of national medals, which could be rivaled by any moderately successful Stalinist apparatchik. What's he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If the record of the team he coached is real, it may be entitled to an article, into which this could be merged; but notability is not contagious.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the notability as a coach of the world-leading math team is substantial. DGG (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (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.