Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henriett Seth-F.


 * 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, no consensus to delete. --Ezeu 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Henriett Seth-F.
This article has existed for some time, unsourced and without describing the subject's notability. – Outriggr § 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone can provide clear sourcing of her accomplishments, which I didn't even realize were attributed to her in looking at the article the first time, I am certainly willing to withdraw this nom early. – Outriggr § 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, if sourced Though essentially a stub, if the info in the article is true it probably is notable enough to keep.  Having one multiple awards and being a savant is notable.  However, clearly this needs sources.  --The Way 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think probably notable.  There are lots of available sources, but most seem to be Hungarian.  Is there a Hungarian Wiki this could be transWiki'd to?  Might be more suitable QuiteUnusual 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be good if there were more sources in English however. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above it is would be better if it had more English sources, but per WP:RS non-English sources are fine, also per avoiding systematic bias --pgk 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for ... systematic non-bias ... but I don't think this concept, in itself, can be a reason to keep or delete an article. Also, if there is an implication that I nominated the article based on such bias, it's not true. – Outriggr § 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to imply you were basing it on such bias, consciously or otherwise. The point was really couple with the other regarding lack of English language sources, there are many people in this world who should meet our standards for inclusion who don't have a single word in English written about them elsewhere, so although it would be nice to have English language sources it is by no means necessary and deleting merely on the basis of a lack of those sources could be a part of systematic bias. The comment was really intended for anyone else reviewing this deletion concerned about the lack of English language sources. --pgk 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is constantly being edited by her (at least it's the same kind of broken English that I see on her website) and she's created stubs of people for the sole purpose of linking back on herself - see Krisztina Stefanik, Miklós Győri and Anna Balazs. I've tried to improve on some of the stubs, but now she's deleted their content entirely. Also, the article on her is getting more and more inaccurate - eg. "Autizmus - egy másik világ" was not published by the University of Pécs, it was published by Kódex Nyomda Kft. in a vanity press anthology, "Új Galaxis". To my knowledge, she has written no "novels", only an autobiography and a few short stories. I'd still say "Keep" if not for her actions that border on vandalism, and for the lack of hope that the article will be improved upon in the foreseeable future (mostly because of the autobiography which did attract an amount of media attention). prezzey 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki I looked at the sources and the content and I have to agree with Prezzey – she's using this article and creating others to amuse or occupy herself. There are lots of people who are subjects of documentaries about autism, weight, medical conditions, and the like who aren't notable and shouldn't have articles. I think this is one of those non-notable people. Krakatoa  Katie  09:11, 3 November 2006 (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.