Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania

WP:DSROMANIAWP:DSROMANIA

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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Romania related AfDs

Scan for Romania related Prods
Scan for Romania related TfDs

Romania

Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus

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

No independent sources attest notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul What kind of sources you mean? It just describes about the projects in the website, visit the website (or GitHub) and see them? Zolgoyo (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language itself has a degree of "definitely endangered" by UNESCO (see the source given in the article, or in the article "Crimean Tatar language"), and this is enough reference for the importance of such kind of project. Zolgoyo (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”, not by subjective opinions regarding the importance of a pet project. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be respectful. There are enough (different) studies indicating that Crimean Tatar (also in Romania) is endangered. It's not a "subjective opinion", it's scientifically proven. Zolgoyo (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a Wikipedia article for the Language Corpus for Crimean Tatar spoken in Romania is important for several reasons, primarily due to its role in language preservation, academic research, and cultural recognition. This corpus represents a vital resource for documenting and studying a critically endangered Turkic language, which faces significant threats of extinction. The article would highlight the linguistic distinctiveness of Dobrujan Tatar, differentiating it from other Turkic languages and dialects, and emphasize its unique historical and cultural context within Romania. It would serve as a central point of reference for researchers, linguists, and the broader public interested in Turkic studies, minority languages, and computational linguistics, promoting further academic inquiry and the development of language technologies. Furthermore, a Wikipedia presence can raise global awareness about the language's precarious status, potentially attracting support for revitalization efforts and empowering the Dobrujan Tatar community in their cultural and linguistic heritage preservation.

Zolgoyo (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Just demonstrate the existence of “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” regarding this topic, and we can close the discussion. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about a Github project that has one star and was created in September. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I object, the argument you give is not a reason to delete the article. Because the aspects I have mentioned make this argument irrelevant.
Zolgoyo (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "Translator (Beta)" section is 100% AI-written. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I veto the argument — The stated argument for deleting the article is not true. The incorrect spelling, sentence structure, or similar issues are due to my difficulties with English.
Zolgoyo (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP:AFDEQ. Deletion discussions operate through consensus, not fanciful adoption of non- existent veto power. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be approximately zero independent coverage of this project. If I were a gambling man, I'd wager that the article author is also the maintainer of the project (or at least connected to it), but I don't know this for sure of course. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehala Greek Catholic Church

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

No assertion of notability. Just another parish church. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Been worried for a while that the new articles being created on Timișoara were looking ever less notable in general. This is such a case. The sourcing here is pretty weak. Not all landmarks in a city can have an article in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 23:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a non-notable parish church without adequate sourcing to establish much beyond it existing and owning property. The article is also especially poorly written, which is not a direct factor in deletion but contributes to lowering other editors' chances of finding additional sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my usual standards for churches. I love historic churches. I sourced 16 articles about churches in November, but this one isn't comparable. It's relatively new and indistinguishable from other churches. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV even with additional searches to consider notability. Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This relatively new church fails WP:NCHURCH Nagirakitan (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure how this passed NPP. I do not see it passing WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV as a trivially significant parish church. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Succes Nic Com

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

“Briefly the 10th largest supermarket in Romania” (shortly before going bankrupt and incurring an organized-crime investigation, something the text, oddly enough, fails to note) is, I would submit, not a credible assertion of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Romania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination fail WP:ORG $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 21:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only used what I could find in English-language sources about it. Which is the two cited in the article. And - again - it already has a corresponding article on the Romanian Wiki: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes_(companie)

So really idk what you want. There are sourceless single-sentence stubs around here that for years nobody deletes, so it's odd to me that you have a problem with this specifically, of all things. As if more reliably-sourced info on the Wiki is a bad thing. WorkingMan1998 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”, not by having cognate articles on sister projects, or by the presence here of similarly dubious articles. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But STILL-- exactly what harm would be done by keeping this article? WorkingMan1998 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If your own arbitrary bureaucracy is what matters most, then I guess I could put the info in Gorj County article, at the Economy section. But I really question why you're so adamant about this, and I frankly believe you have ulterior motives. You're more invested in deleting this than I am in keeping it. Which is just...weird. Alas, enjoy your bureaucracy I guess. WorkingMan1998 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artifex University

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

Notability. No references. Google did not turn up any non primary sourcing. Docmoates (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NSCHOOL. Svartner (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: century old organization needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania

Romania

Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus

Mehala Greek Catholic Church

Succes Nic Com

Artifex University

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also