Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepy Dobronyi


 * 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sepy Dobronyi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Longstanding article with some notability which I would prefer have the community weigh in on rather than swing the axe (scythe?) myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - No actual WP:DELREASON has been stated. Most of the sourcing in the article (which is plentiful) is offline. All I can do is assume good faith that the sourcing was actually as presented by the person who added it and as such would support notability. Even if not I think this is at the very least a WP:BASIC pass per these sources - 1 2 3. Dobronyi is notable as a well-known playboy with at least two major incidents of notability (the dispute over his making of a nude statue of a Hollywood star, the auctioning of Queen Elizabeth II's under wear) and probably many others. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for the CSD tag was G11 (unambiguous promotion), I should have mentioned that in the nomination statement but it is - as you correctly point out - not present. Sorry about that. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G11 is a speed deletion tag and clearly this is not an article that should be speedily deleted. Like G11 says, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion". Clearly this is a notable subject at least on WP:BASIC grounds. To be honest I think a lot people are being way too trigger-happy with WP:PROD, and articles that are eminently saveable, or not even particularly problematic, are being deleted as a result.FOARP (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Question. I don't understand the rationale here. Does "swing the axe" mean "stubbify" or "overhaul"? Like, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the many offline sources listed, so if there's no problem with notability or verifiability, why are we at AfD? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Swinging the axe means deleting it outright. I can swing that axe on my own authority, but in this case I want the community to weigh in on the matter before I delete the article because I don't see a clear cut case here for G11. If the community feels it should be deleted, then the axe is swung and the article dies, otherwise it stays where it is and someone who gives a damn about it can fix it up. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This "artist" gets 0 hits on JSTOR, and a 5 on |Google scholar, and looks like no critical piece on his "art", so one might argue he is not notable enough for his "art" (sculpture, jewelry, photo).
 * However, other people e.g. book illustrators tend to get this sort of silent treatment, and that should not automatically establish non-notability, IMO.
 * The subject is evidently a fixture in the cultural scene in Miami, with other former Cuba inhabitants like Ernest Hemingway in the mix. Consequently he has sculpted/photo'd some actors and sold a strand to Mrs. Hemingway, which is written up about in some mags and books, and this seems sufficiently WP:GNG. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per discussion. The page seems well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * per The Miami Herald: "Any recounting of his history must carry a disclaimer: The only person who could separate fact from fiction in his colorful life died of liver cancer just after midnight May 29 at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach". We have very good reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of this article. Vexations (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Veracity or not of various incidents of his life is a page-quality issue, similar to that of any other notable fabulist or charlatan. Simply stating the points of his life over which there was some doubt (i.e., the queen has not acknowledged that the underwear sold were actually hers) is sufficient, but that claims he made about his life are verifiable as claims, we need not state whether his claims were true or not. Still a WP:V, WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I did a bunch of cleanup before I finally gave up and G11d the article. For reference, it previously looked like this, and included gems like and royal crown jeweler,[3] aristocrat, art collector, world traveler, movie maker, pilot, wine collector, sportsman, playboy, and bon vivant. I decided to attempt a (risky) speedy because I realised that while the promotional content may be removable, the fundamental issues this article has cannot be addressed without a full rewrite. It has been cultivated by a single SPA for years, and while concerns about serious reliability issues were raised in 2011, an IP (likely the principal author) removed the objections and carried on. encountered copyright violations, unreliable sources, and a bunch of highly questionable claims (see the page history to see my attempts at cleanup). The article makes a number of exceptional claims and backs them up with sources that are questionable at best, including various editions of playboy). It reads, in essence, like a movie plot, and I get the feeling that that is what it actually is. I recommend reading the pre-cleanup version in full; it makes so many incredible claims that I came to the conclusion that nothing in this article should be taken at face value, simply because it all seems massively over-exaggerated. I have no confidence in any information included in it. Hence delete for the sake of being a reliable encyclopaedia and per WP:TNT Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify: Pre-cleanup, the article claimed, among other things, that the subject was one of six pilots chosen to try out the world's first Rocket-powered aircraft., was shot down in his aircraft and captured by the Russians and being held in prison in occupied Hungary but managed to escape in one day and immediately returned to Budapest, spoke six languages, walked from Budapest to Sweden through occupied territory (despite the chronology implying that this was post-war), designed a brooch for Queen Elizabeth's wedding, then went to Caracas with only $150.00, his suitcase and the suit on his back, where his art studio became a mecca for various celebrities. Skipping half the page, we then find claims that he traveled to 89 countries, climbed mount Kilimanjaro and the Matterhorn, was injured by an arrow to his leg while being in New Guinea to to observe a primitive tribal war, only to recover within three days with the help of the natives, shot a lion that was charging at him, etc. etc. I have little faith in the credibility of the article. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also forgot this subtle wink: Dobronyi's trademark while living in Cuba, was a pocket full of shark's teeth which he passed out to the girls of his choice.[21] Over 600 females are a member of the Shark tooth club.[12], as well as that he was the one person in Cuba who put shirts on artists' backs and bankbooks in their pocket for the first time in the island's history. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You're trying to argue WP:TNT here but clearly the article is saveable - just delete the WP:PROMO stuff. The subject is clearly notable based simply on the obituary references. If an editor is being permanently disruptive then WP:ANI them. His claims about himself being dubious is not an issue (we cover fiction on Wiki) so long as their dubiousness is also highlighted and they are described as claims, not stated as facts. Speedy is most definitely not supposed to be used for cases like this - it is not simply a nuke button that you can press to avoid the hard work of editing. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with FOARP that Blablubbs should deal with editing issues by methods other than total annihilation (deletion).
 * You don't need to get so compulsive-obsessive about purging every claim either.
 * As an example, Yul Brynner article retains discussion of his (fictitious) Romani descent claim.
 * And non-outlandish claims like having "only $150.00" as an escapee, you can let slide.
 * Also a false perception of anachronism, bcz nothing strange about difficulty in getting visas to a (formerly) occupied state in the immediate post-war months. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll reply to the rest of the arguments brought forth by you and later, just noting that I don't appreciate the suggestion that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint must be mentally unwell, nor the insinuation that I am merely being lazy here. Also dropping Special:Diff/987360955 here to support my argument about the doubtful reliability of the article, even when it comes to claims that are apparently sourced. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I admit I am not a psychiatrist, so maybe I should have avoided a clinical term, but the point is Wikipedia rules as per WP:PRIMARYCARE do not endorse an editor rejecting every self-made claim, and even allows those found in his own autobiography, provided it is non-controversial. Your criterion seems to be that you feel entitled to remove a non-controversial self-made claim even if it is from a secondary source, and I'm asserting that you are over-reaching.


 * The statement of having $150 on one's person as a refugee, might be controversial in your assessment, but thousands if not millions of refugees have a similar experience to tell with no way to substantiate if that was the actual sum on money they had on them. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not here to litigate specific claims made in the article. The problem is that the text makes no indication of whether these are claims or presented as fact by the sources; did he claim or was he one of the first pilots of rocket-powered aircraft? It is likely that some of the claims presented are true, it is likely that some aren't; but given the quality, appropriateness concerns (see Diff above) and inaccessibility of the sources (I doubt anyone will be able to find many 1962 issues of "Today. ME- and the Gold-Plated Girls", which is the source for that specific claim), we would essentially have to hat half the article with "the following may or may not be true". Alternatively, we could be left with a two-sentence stub. So yes, I think WP:TNT applies here.
 * And no, you shouldn't have used the clinical term regardless of your professional background. And if you feel that my edits are a sign of "entitlement", you can follow BRD and revert them all. Twinkle has a great function for that. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And no, you shouldn't have used the clinical term regardless of your professional background. And if you feel that my edits are a sign of "entitlement", you can follow BRD and revert them all. Twinkle has a great function for that. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Seems notable, although COI applies, as it was written by Sepy1031, and his Wiki activity revolved around Sepy's page only. (Tho' it couldn't be him, since the article was written in 2011, and Sepy died in 2010. Most likely one of his fans or someone among those lines must've written it.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm frankly surprised that this should require any further discussion, after the opinions above were virtually unanimously for keeping the article, except for the dissenting opinion of the initiator of the deletion request. In any case, the presented reasoning for deletion is without merit. More so, I believe that following up with deleting this article, essentially based on the gut feeling of one user, would set a dangerous precedent, which would potentially give way to deletion discussions for virtually any article on topics pertaining to history, which by definition will contain facts that may not be verifiable any longer, since the witnesses or records are most often not readily accessible anymore. What is important to be understood is that this is part of the fundamental nature of the matter of authoring of texts on the subject of history and biographical material on subjects which are no longer around. In general, the discussion has yet to bring forward a valid reason for deletion. One, the notability of the subject of the article has not been questioned. And two, the article generally does well (where it can) by being adequately sourced and this has not been questioned either. Much rather, part of the discussion here seems to be related to the nature of the claims presented in the sources themselves (of which many are tabloid newspapers). While many of the claims on the subject's life presented in these sources may be impossible for us to verify, this circumstance is not of relevance to this article itself. This is because the fact that these stories on the subject‘s life were widely publicized, found widespread attention and became part of public canon (even if mostly geograhically restrained to parts of Florida), makes them historically relevant and thus worth preserving. Even if the article is deleted, the fact that the stories were widely published (and read) will never be reversed. The stories themselves that this article references are by now of public relevance, because they have shaped an enduring image of a notable subject, whether verifiable or not. The article in itself is valuable in collecting the publicly available information of the subject, which would otherwise remain scattered across archives.TwentyEightyFour (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — TwentyEightyFour (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep but stubify. This could be cut down to a couple paragraphs. It is chock full of trivia at the moment. Possibly (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I second the lengthy and thoughtful comment by TwentyEightyFour. The article is well-referenced and supported, and I am puzzled by the desire to delete good encyclopedic information.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (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.