Talk:Valentina Bodrug-Lungu

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that gender studies scholar Valentina Bodrug-Lungu has spoken out on how the political climate in Moldova is not conducive to women's participation in politics, despite a woman president? Source: https://moldova.europalibera.org/a/femei-politica-discriminare/31096176.html - first paragraph in translation "At first glance, last year's presidential elections tipped the gender balance in politics in the Republic of Moldova in favor of women: for the first time the country is led by a woman president - Maia Sandu." & third paragraph "the environment in which the elections were held was unfavorable for women"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Godwin Obasi

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Valentina Bodrug-Lungu; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

• Another welcome addition to Women in Red, newly created, long enough, and no copyvio concerns. Have to AGF on the source as it was translated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up. What is this person's claim to notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (people), let alone Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Highest academic rank is as an associate professor, the coverage in the press seems to be sparse, and much of the article is based on a summary on her opinions on this and that topic, or mentioning some small organizations she founded and leads. Not one award, not one piece of evidence about her significance in the field(s) she covers, not one single position as editor of a journal or leader of an academic body. Until and unless some of these criteria are shown to apply the bio should not be included on DYK, and should in fact be deleted as promotional cruft. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Dahn, thanks for adding your point of view. It was her foundation of Gender Centru and her work as a pioneer of gender studies in Moldova that means inclusion here is appropriate. I've added a three further sources, which have expanded the article somewhat. I would encourage you to think holistically about the field of gender studies - this article was written as part of an Women in Red theme (I'll cross-post this discussion here) - since the discipline itself is under-research and under-represented. I see you're a Romanian speaker - so I wonder if you have access to further sources, particularly scholarly reviews, that could help expand the article? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lajmmoore Yes, please let's not go down the loaded-language path of "thanks for adding your point of view" when I am quoting wikipedia policies. Do go over them and cite me the part that would make Bodrug-Lungu notable for this project: as compared to those criteria, and not some others we invent especially for her, how is she notable? (For instance, is she called a "pioneer of gender studies" by a leading newspaper, or is you calling her that, and asking us to comply with your claim?) Yes, I do speak Romanian, and yes, I have to say she is not notable even at that -- there are no hidden inaccessible sources that make her more notable than she currently seems; not that the burden of proving she is notable would fall on me -- it falls on you, as the author. Regards, Dahn (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In the entry, a UN document references the claim that she pioneered gender studies in Moldova. Innisfree987 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The "document" (indeed, Biruitorul is correct to call it a press release -- on which see WP:PSTS) says that she created a Masters' course, which is not the same thing as her scholarship being pioneering of anything. Dahn (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ms. Bodrug-Lungu built the foundation for gender education in Moldova". Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Says a capsule biography leading into a press release. This is puffery, not scholarship or objectivity. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just puffery, but note how that quote was not given in full: "Ms. Bodrug-Lungu built the foundation for gender education in Moldova through the creation of the Masters’ course ‘Therapy for Family Relationships’ at Moldova State University." This is not a comment on her scholarship, but on her administrative functions. Dahn (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re entitled to your opinion that teaching is an unimportant contribution to the field but the source takes a different view. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're entitled to your opinion that it does, but wikipedia guidelines are quite clear that they it isn't important enough to warrant biographical articles. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You’ve misread my view, and, I believe, WP:NPROF. Both the policy and I take the view that significant contributions are decided by sources, not personal opinions of what kinds of scholarly contributions count. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant contributions are decided by sources independent of the subject, and which refer to scholarship. If they do not refer to scholarship, then it is you inferring the claim that they still should be taken into account. If you want to cite criterion 7 of WP:PROF, you will need to show sources (many, independent, and themselves of importance) explicitly sating why she is significant: "she is the leading expert in the field of" -- that sort of statement. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, "Gender Centru" (a name that somehow manages to be ungrammatical in two languages) is a minuscule NGO, precisely as I mentioned; it has no virtually no coverage in the media, a website that is under construction, and seems mainly a one-person operation by Bodrug-Lungu. This is not an issue of gender bias -- it's an issue of claiming Bodrug-Lungu should have a puff-piece on wikipedia because there supposedly is a gender bias (which she herself makes a profession out of pointing out, incidentally). Dahn (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is frequently a tendency to try to have articles about academics deleted if they are not about full professors. In this case, whatever Dahn maintains about lack of media coverage, the fact that the UN and the Council of Europe have referred to Bodrug-Lungu and/or to Gender Centru in multiple articles makes her notable. We should therefore proceed with the DYK as planned. (I had no difficulty in finding coverage of Bodrug-Lungu in the Moldovan media [1], [2]).--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But the level of coverage she’s received in the Moldovan media is trivial. In the first source, she is quoted as insisting on a gender quota for the government. In the second, she recites some platitudes. Neither source adds to any claim of notability. Which of her publications has made a scholarly impact? What academic prizes has she received? What discoveries has she made? Or are we reducing our notability standards on a whim?
• Moving on, simply invoking “the UN” does not exclude those sources from close scrutiny. All this does is attest she once appeared on a panel; surely not all panelists are notable, UN or not. This is a press release, of the type that agency puts out by the dozens.
• There is still no objective evidence of WP:PROF or any other notability criterion being met. I too object to promotion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 121 GS citations over a 20-year span? How is that notable for an academic, irrespective of field? -- Turgidson (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I’ve nominated the article for deletion, which precludes DYK as long as the AfD discussion is underway. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the continuation of the discussion. On the subject of the UN as a reliable source, I found this discussion about the UN and sustainability a thoughtful read Lajmmoore (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lajmmoore: Nobody here is disputing whether it is a reliable source or not, just that it does not establish notability. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dahn and Lajmmoore: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Narutolovehinata5, the AfD is still open Lajmmoore (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Narutolovehinata5, the AfD has been closed due to no consensus Lajmmoore (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was the AFD the only thing holding this back or are there still other issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Re-reading the discussion above, it seems like notability was the primary issue, hence the AfD nomination. However I can't speak for others in the discussion above, who may have further concerns to share. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it; this is good to go. This was new enough at time of nomination. This is long enough. This has no neutrality problems, no copyright problems and no maintenance templates. I see nothing wrong with the hook's length or sourcing. Concerns about notability are academic now that it's passed AfD. Unless anybody's got any objections, I say let's go.--Launchballer 07:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]