Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsuzsanna Budapest


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Zsuzsanna Budapest

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated for deletion by myself on behalf of MarkChase. He gives the following rationale: I find it promotional and the sources are unreliable. No third party sources except websites maintained by the author. Even though it seems to be a real person, it is promotion and is not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Please note I have no opinion on the article. GARDEN 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I confirm the request for deletion. The person referred in the site has by no means accomplished anything worthy of encyclopedic reference to earn a full article about her. No third party publications and no work with peer-reviews from reliable sources. MarkChase (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is restrained, and the subject has written a whole bunch of books, some with very minor publishers but some by major houses such as HarperCollins. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notably is not temporary. Z. Budapest is considered an important figure in woman's spirituality and her works are cited by her peers.  POV issues within an article are no grounds for deletion.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sources. No indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Z Budapest is a major figure in the Women's Spirituality and Neo-Pagan movements. She has written several books published by respected presses, and has a long career as a public speaker and an advocate for feminist issues and religious rights. The article can use some improvement, but should NOT be deleted. JuliusAaron (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly. A major neo-pagan figure who meets the "heard of her before seeing the Wikipedia article" test, for I had read of her in fairly well known books like Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon and elsewhere.  Suggest early close. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is appropriate, I would like to note the person who initiated this delete, MarkChase, is a sock puppet who, IMO, appears to have a vendetta against a person who was referenced for one of the entry's citations.  It seems to me that this delete is not about improving the quality articles on wiki, but simply about removing that reference.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Zsuzsanna has at least a large para dedicated to her work in Hutton's scholarly "The Triumph Of The Moon" which, as a book, has a massive scope, and describes only major people/activities. Page just needs improvement. Rainonwood (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The list of references listed on the article as well being honored at CIIS I think indicate that Z. Budapest fulfills the widely cited by their peers criteria for creative professionals.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is now a list of over twenty-five books making reference to and/or quoting or including an interview of Z. Budapest in this article. I assure you, there are more available. Feel free to search both as Zsuzsanna Budapest and Z. Budapest. She is one of the most prominent figures in Goddess-Worship, Dianic Wicca, and feminism in America. This nomination is absurd. Rosencomet (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (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.