Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tas László Dobos


 * 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. For reference, here's the Hungarian deletion discussion. czar 01:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Tas László Dobos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagged for notability since 2017. There are two interwikis; the Armenian one is built on the same sources the English one uses, and on the Hungarian Wiki, the article is up to deletion as well. On the Hungarian Afd, it has been mentioned that "we know he has published a lot of books, but that is not a support for notability; also, google search hasn't returned anything useful, only bookstores and trivial mentions", well, that says a lot. Rest in peace though. Anyways, the question is: is he notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The article text looks like a lot of it is machine-translated from hu wikipedia, so there might be a plausible case for WP:TNT type deletion there.  OTOH, the article apparently refers to several reviews of works (and multiple reviews of multiple works would be a pass of WP:NAUTHOR).  The problem is that the article doesn't actually give a source for the reviews, failing WP:V.  I wasn't able to find the reviews listed in the article (or other reviews) in my search; someone who speaks more Hungarian than I do might have more success. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I am Hungarian, and the Hungarian article is up to deletion as well like I said, and almost everyone voted for deletion there, so there aren't any better sources in our language either. Machine-translated articles are a huge problem on our wiki. It looks like we are not the only one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The debate on the Hungarian page centers around the question whether the reviews in the blurbs/forewords of the works themselves count as sources. These are signed reviews from noteworthy editors, translators, writers, etc. It is far from the truth that most people voted for deletion, there actually is a weak majority for keeping it.Dobos G. (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ''Weak majority"? But anyways, the consensus on that site is not really clear. There are of course people who voted with keep, but there are delete votes too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much, only for the sake of clarity: at this moment, there are 7 votes for keeping it and 4 for deletion.Dobos G. (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreating with better sourcing. The most plausible case for notability is through WP:NAUTHOR, which would generally require multiple reviews of multiple works.  The article does appear to have some quotations from reviews, but sourcing is extremely unclear, and it is unclear how one would go about verifying.  I suspect that the subject had reviewed works in the pre-internet age, with the reviews appearing perhaps in defunct Hungarian newspapers (for example).  The reviews quotations that are in the article do not look like a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR even if they could be tracked down; meanwhile, the article is in a sufficiently poor state that I believe we'd be better off starting from scratch if reviews are tracked down later.  I am not particularly influenced by the hu wiki deletion discussion, as notability criteria are surely quite different; I remind participants here that sources do not need to be in English or online (but they do need to be verifiable).  I will remark that I do speak some Hungarian, though I am far from fluent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a source that meets all these criteria: http://artes-liberales.hu/start.php?rovat=muveszet&cikk=117. It is a report of a book presentation which took place at the headquarters of the Hungarian Writer's Union, where the publisher, a member of the Union himself, spoke about the book. The report, written by an independent third party, includes two (brief) reviews. Dobos G. (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd take that source as weakly constituting a review. (It'd be a bit stronger if it had a clearer author; I'll point out for other editors that the publication is described at .)  Several other similar reviews (say, 4-5) would likely constitute a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * delete without prejudice. Abandoned article, therefore to draftify is noit an option, unless someone volunteers to adopt it. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2021 (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.