Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Bútora


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:BOLD (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Martin Bútora

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced BLP. Has been unreferenced since December 2004. That's over six years. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not spend a few seconds clicking on the Google news search, before wasting all of our time sending it to the AFD?  D r e a m Focus  15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Tagged over a year ago for sources, but quite a few hits on google & google news. I think this meets rescue. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- I have already found and included one source, and am in the process of adding another four sources. This person clearly meets our verifiability and notability requirements. Reyk  YO!  08:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- I'll also add that there are oodles of news articles behind paywalls and in a language I assume to be Slovak, but I can't do anything with those because I'm a stingy bastard and I don't understand Slovak. Reyk  YO!  08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The New York Times article proves the person is notable. Click on the Google news search above, and there plenty of articles about this guy.  You can even alter the search to only list English results.  See how much press the guy gets?   D r e a m Focus  15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I am convince by now that this new editor is nominating possibly with good intentions but it comes out as bad faith. See this comment at Articles for deletion/Eva Kwok, which they started. See also Articles for deletion/Salama al-Khufaji, where one doubts whether the nominator understands the deletion process and the responsibilities it entails for nominators, such as WP:BEFORE. Really, the nominator should explain themselves. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any passing admin: please close this thing, per comments by the nominator on Articles for deletion/Birgitta Trotzig also. And if someone has a trout handy, please apply a firm b****slap to the nominator for wasting our time and claiming to have saved four BLPs. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — article is now in reasonable shape. Thanks to nom for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - can we please close this immediately? The nominator is a sock on a breaching experiment involving nominating unreferenced BLPs for the sake of stirring up trouble.  It's not worth dealing with the substance at this time.  Obviously notable, no reasonable criteria for deletion per policy.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep: Nominating such an easily sourceable BLP for AfD shows that we have easily sourceable BLPs, but we already knew that.--Milowent (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2010 (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.