Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoppál Bulcsú


 * 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The result was   No consensus/Nomination withdrawn. I can see that this isn't going either way any time soon, and the default is to keep. Non-admin closure. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoppál Bulcsú

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This one's a bit complicated. The article was submitted in Hungarian, then listed at WP:PNT where it remained untranslated after two weeks. As is the usual practice in the translation department, the article was prodded. But because the prod nominator had used the wrong acronym in the deletion rationale, the reviewing admin declined the prod. That admin realized his mistake, however, but cited the possibility that this individual might be notable, and that a machine translation might be a good starting point for an article. Personally, I agree that it could be done; however, GScholar returns nothing on this individual, and GNews returns only three hits, one of which is actually something he wrote. Though it's not hopeless, it's not quite enough to pass WP:BIO just yet. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I offered to rewrite this in English and, quite possibly, show notability as meeting WP:PROF as an expert on Aquinas (his publisher is the leading French academic publisher, which has a branch in Budapest, which is why I was willing to try it--I wouldn't have offered otherwise) , the nom., knowing this, insisted on nominating it anyway without first giving me a chance. GScholar and  GNews are not noted for their coverage of Hungarians religious scholars, and the absence of material there is irrelevant. Myself, I can't actually judge until there's a chance to present it properly.   DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If we can get it tidied up, we should do not, not delete merely because this was not done fast enough. Hope  DGG can do that.  I cannot as I do not speak Hungarian!  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete because of the lack of sources found in the search. As an academic, he's a suitable article topic if we get no sources, so recreation would be good if more are found after AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been translated and formatted. And although there's still only one reliable secondary source we should give this a try per DGG's comments on Hoppal's expertise. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (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.