Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pál Milkovics (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Only SPAs want to keep this, it seems.  Sandstein  20:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Pál Milkovics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still don't believe this subject meets the notability guidelines. Most of the sources are not WP:RS in my opinion. Full disclosure this article was previously nominated by me and the result was no consensus. I don't believe it has improved at all. This is a run of the mill businessman with no indication of impacts that warrant a page on Wikipedia. I also think it is worth noting that the editor and the person the article is about are from the Czech Republic yet no entry exist on the Czech language Wikipedia... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the editor of the page User:Zackmann08 has a personal interest with the person WP:COI, that is clearly obvious, he has tried to block me as the editor, he is deleting all my editing and really keen on deleting the article. Please do check the editing history of the article and you will see he has vandalised, removed my edits, references. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even worthy of a response. If any admin even remotely agrees with the statement made by above, let me know and I will gladly explain the situation. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment About some sources used there: iDnes.cz is important Czech news site (online brother of MF Dnes magazine); Mam.ihned.cz is one of magazines of the Economia company (another big media house in the Czech Republic); DigiZone.cz is owned by Internet Info company which runs also other online sites. These seem to be reliable, others I don´t know. Why there is no article in CZ Wiki? Their PR campaign is probably aimed at English language customers... Pavlor (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is not the correct venue for debating who is right or not take it to a talk page or to ANI Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'am sorry that I was not able to provide my point of view earlier. Just for who is new to this discussion I would like to provide some background information. I am a very new editor to Wikipedia, and I have started with this article, it was here since quiet sometimes and I thought I could provide more up to date informations. I have no any relation to him or to his company, I am not part of any PR campaign. As Pavlor pointed out above, the sources are legit ones and comply with Wikipedia policies and support the notability of the person. Today later I will add new ones as well I obtained print articles from 15 years ago from the most read newspapers from Hungary, I already uploaded here but Zackamnn08 has deleted them because I wasn't able to add to the article in the right formats, I will try to upload them on the right format later on. I believe the reason is that I haven't created the article in Czech yet is, that the article was here in English, Milkovics is not Czech and his work just partly was done in the Czech Republic (rather in several countries as the sources are showing), and as there is no any requirement to the source be in English, and English is an universal language I thought that the best is to have the article in English first. I believe that to disqualify sources as few did, even if they do not understand the articles, or the market, have no idea of the Czech, Slovak, Finish, etc. markets and its news outlet are rather not reasonable (even in previous discussions few criticised how these websites are look), their feelings or belief are should not be a reason for deletion. The article has 21 sources as of now, and I do know not the number of sources what matters but their quality, I strongly stand for that all of them are complying with Wikipedia polices for sources and support the person's notability. If needed I can go through one by one and prove it, as well that the authors are independent, established journalist. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And now a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No Zackman08 if you would actually check the references rather just try to blindly make your case to delete the articles, all of them are new articles from the previous weeks. I think a new update and new references are helping to have a better, more relevant article here. As well, all of the new references are from reliable sources, I am sure they have not been written in the previous days to WP:BOMBARDMENT the article. Also I was travelling in the last weeks. How many references can be added at one time, please advise? Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I said nearly 3 months ago as there's still nothing convincing regardless of improvements, because this still suggests it's only existing PR, also I'm not seeing anything to suggest this could then be acceptable soon and this still actually applies, there's literally nothing significant here and we should not think otherwise lest we mistake ourselves. SwisterTwister   talk  05:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The only facts here that the references are from reliable sources. The rest are assumptions from people who does not know the business or/and the region. 85.255.234.139 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing this thread with amusement how few editors make judgment about things they have no idea or they do not understand. Just to pick few from the references and their authors, the news-outlets already been discussed above.
 * Jan Potucek
 * Ondřej Aust
 * Jan Brychta
 * Jiří Hořčica
 * I coud go on and on. I would not argue for the notability of the person in this article, but somehow well regarded journalists have decided that he is worth enough to write about him and his doings, and far as I can see that is why Wikipedia has its notability guideline based on this criteria and not people's feelings. I believe it would be a mistake to think that all these journalist have bad judgment. 2A00:1028:8386:496A:E5C5:4B5A:33DC:396E (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the above is a WP:SPA with no edits outside of this discussion. Likely WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK of page creator. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably true. However, they are right there are at least some RS about subject of this article. How many sources are needed to keep this one? As I wrote above, idnes.cz and ihned.cz are portals of big Czech media houses, good enough sources (in general terms), I think. Pavlor (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the number of sources is not relevant. Read WP:BOMBARDMENT. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. That is why I mentioned my view about both idnes.cz and ihned.cz web pages. Aren´t such sources sufficient? Pavlor (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I really thought that I will try to stay away from this until it resolved, but Zackman08 you should really have to have some deep issues with this person as you are only trying to discredit everyone who is not agreeing with you, claiming that they are biased (or they are doing things in my behalf), but you couldn't do anything with their arguments. It seems to me everyone is in a big conspiracy (including the journalists and the papers) against you. I didn't asked anyone to comment here on my behalf because I believe that I did enough to save the article with my arguments. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * say what you will but you have already been blocked once before for WP:SOCK. You attempted to cast WP:ASPERSIONS against me by reporting me as a Long-term abuseer but were basically laughed at by admins when you didn't provide a single shred of evidence. You're sole purpose on wikipedia is this page. You also seem convinced that my sole purpose is deleting it. If you bothered to look at my contributions you would realize that is false. Get over yourself and realize you aren't that important for me to take the time to attack you or the page you created. Try actually contributing to building a wiki. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for you to promote people. I've had it with your rude and baseless comments towards me. Until you start editing constructively I will not respond to any more comments from you. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again no argument, just your beliefs, you cannot and you never evaluated any of the references, or the authors or anything relevant (as anyone can see from your contributions from this article). You just put maintenance tags all over to the article, you are in your own word are rude with beginners, and you are probably angry. Yes I looked for help from administrators, because even you say that I am not that important for you, you invest a lot to discredit me and to absolutely discourage me of editing now from more than 4 months. I am contacting, as Wikipedia advises, for the help of experienced editors to improve my future edits with this article (and upcoming ones) if I will get the chance to continue as well to be protected people like you. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I am sorry, but notability cannot be inherited. I gave a thorough evaluation of the sources in the last AfD. Every single source only mentions the subject in context of a decision/product launch by the company. Others are interviews which are primary sources and even these interviews are all in context of the company - they ask stuff about the company which makes the company notable, not the subject. There is nothing to show that the subject themself is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment my point (with the Czech dealings of his) is exactly that he has created (he is the founder and CEO) a notable company, if that would not make him notable then following your thoughts Steve Jobs, Bill Gates would not be a notable person as well only their companies. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are entire books about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates... These two really aren´t comparable to the subject of this article - whose notability is borderline at best. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I would not compare him to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, absolutely not! I only was referring to the argument (namely that the company is notable but not the person who has made it notable). And he is complying with Wikipedia notability guideline (quality of references) even if someone feel not in the same way . Pikipaki2222 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on SPAs I noticed that there are a multiple !votes by SPAs. I had seen this in the previous AfD as well. The SPA activity here suspiciously points to a campaign to promote the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as everything listed here is simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing actually establishing his own convincing and acceptable article, and the sources then match this hence simply nothing genuine for an article here. I must say, I also have to believe there's some paid advertising motivations here given the fact the maintenance tags have been removed with no considerations or improvements, and then the history overall simply consists of questionability. Simply because there was a business connection to someone else or there was attention for it is an automatic inherited notability. SwisterTwister   talk  18:20, 24 November 2016 (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.