Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County of Csesznek


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

County of Csesznek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was about a never existing polity. It was cleaned after no reliable source was found to substantiate the existence of that entity Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I do not understand your above action. There is no reliable source that mentions this "county". On 27th March, I placed two templates (OR and speculation) on the article . On the same day, I left a message on the relevant wikiproject's Talk page, informing the members of the project that I was planning to delete the whole article. On 31th March, the creator of the article emptied it and redirected it to the Csesznek page . The "County of Csesznek" never existed, consequently I suggested that it should be deleted on 1st April . On the same day, I informed the creator of the article , and she/he has not opposed it. Why do you think that the article should be preserved? Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's common procedure to relist an AfD listing (twice, actually) that has received little or no attention in a week. I didn't pass judgment on your case at all—relisting is completely procedural. czar ⨹   17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your above clarification. If my understanding is correct, I do not need to nominate the article again for deletion. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Correct—you'll know when the nomination is closed. Hopefully it'll get more attention this time around.) czar ⨹   18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no article and the one that was was not properly sourced. I can find nothing to substantiate it. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since it's a redirect it doesn't belong at AfD. List on Redirects for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I preferred to propose a speedy deletion. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2015 (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.