Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akos Gurzo


 * 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 No consensus (default keep). Very little of this discussion was actually valid. The article asserts notability, a user provides references to support these assertions, but the sources are in a foreign language. That's all we have here for the closing administrator to consider. So the deletion policy advises us to lean toward keep in questionable cases, therefore my decision accordingly.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Akos Gurzo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Somehow I would think that someone who has worked for a news agency since he was 16 would have more than 74 Google hits. I can't find any stories he's written either to verify the claims made in his article (two prestigious awards). Blueboy96 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article meets the formal and content requirements of the Wikipedia. Google gives several articles and links for his name too. It’s a well-known fact that the work at a news agency is anonym, names of the journalists do not appear in the media, only the name of the newswire. But there are still several articles and reference point for Akos Gurzo (Gurzó Ákos) on the web. Here are five of them: BBC Hungarian MFAHungarian PMOa daily Hungarian papearJournalist UnionWeb 2.0 17 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Having workied in the commerical communication industry for 15 years in Europe and here in Hungary for for the last 5. I know for a fact the Mr. Gurzo's article is fact. His articles on Afghanistan as well as international political analysis on internatioanal events have added to the Hungary's concern about external affairs. Although young, he has been very active in the Hungarian media and in bringing relevant, unbias information to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.96.63 (talk • contribs) — 81.182.96.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Gary King (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasoning, please? This is not a vote. Blueboy96 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Blueboy! Please, explain your concerns again and underpin your viewpoint with facts and quotations from Wikipedia. It can easily happens that your standpoint based on impressions instead of clear facts because of the language and cultural differences. Please, help us to improve this article together and make the Wikipedia a better place together. I'm ready to cooperate with you and help you to create a perfect article. I do beleive in the power of communication between people from all around the world, because this simple action is the bottom line of the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Web 2.0 —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)  — Web 2.0 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral Seems to be the first article of a new Wikipediauser. Some parts of the article do not belong to Wikipedia since they read like a letter of application :"travels a lot inside and outside of Hungary not only professionally but privately as well to meet new people and understand different perspectives". I would like to see references to the awards since they could make the difference. If the awards are important, than the awards themselves should have an article. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I wrote about the awards I used the following links and articles for the awards: Kazinczy-prize 1Kazinczy-prize 2Kazinczy-prize 3MTI-prize 1MTI-prize 2MTI-prize 2Web 2.0 —Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 + : Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer  23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This gentleman seems to be a good candidate for a Magyar Wikipedia, but until and unless English language references are added he should have no place on an English Wikipedia, WP:Verifiability. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a gross misrepresentation common misconception. A lack of English language sources does not preclude articles from being on the English Wikipedia. Hungarian sources would do just fine. matt91486 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) user modified own comment @ 23:40, 26 February 2008
 * I think "gross" is a bit hyperbolic, the guidelines can not cover every contingency for verifiablilty. There is an essay that covers this somewhere, something about not sticking something up your nose. If the general community can not comfirm his notalility, he does not qualify under the guidelines. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking for is a translation, certainly not much to ask as the references seems to be one-line trivial mentions. I suppose I could have worded my objections better. user added to own comment @ 14:47, 26 February 2008
 * That's true, it was a bit hyperbolic. I guess what I should have said was common misconception, which I've altered my comments above. I naturally am unable to translate the sources myself, but you maybe could find someone able to do that. matt91486 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Notable is notable, irrespective of the language in which sources are written. I do not (yet) claim that the subject of this article is notable, but an article should not be deleted merely for lack of English-language sources. It is inaccurate to equate "the English-language Wikipedia" with "the Wikipedia for the Anglosphere". Black Falcon (Talk) 05:41, 2 March 2008 (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.