Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (3rd nomination)

Janos Boros

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) * Note : This is the second, not the third nomination

Support Not notable. I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. He does not possess an article not even on Romanian Wikipedia Iaaasi (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor local official not covered in any meaningful depth by independent sources. Yes, local newspapers did feature his name from time to time, but only in passing, or in tangential relation to a corruption scandal (tellingly not mentioned by this promotional article). Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN requirements. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vice-Mayor? Delete as per Biruitorul. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I originally closed this as delete, but in light of the previous AfD a fuller discussion is probably more appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this in the previous discussion, can anyone confirm if it was legitimate?

"As to the aspect of finding mention in Romanian media, 61 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 37 mentions in Adevărul, 41 mentions in Ziua, 200 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 128 mentions in hotnews.ro are significant." Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't manipulate the information. The correct data are: 4 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 8 mentions in Adevărul, 0 mentions in Ziua, 123 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 100 mentions in hotnews.ro (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Did you read the above? I said I found it being posted in the previous discussion. Obviously the listed results show the data at the time of the first Afd, which was in 2009. Unless they were manipulated in 2009. Seems a case of selective reading to me. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What has changed here since the last AfD? Oh, yeah: mudslinging. Here I am, standing by my earlier comment: "I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage that he got in the press is, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively owed to a local corruption scandal which implicated him (an incident which, tellingly, is not even covered by the article). The news is of marginal interest even locally (in Cluj County, that is), and the text, which is most likely promotional, is horribly written. This is a quick way to make oneself look important, not an encyclopedic topic." Dahn (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dahn, I reviewed the talk page comment that you cite and In my view it was an inappropriate remark. Without a doubt there are some legitimate concerns with this article, such as tone and it's creator's list of contributions making a description of "most likely promotional" accurate. However these problems can sometime be fixed by rewriting by someone else. I think the ideal solution here would be a stub written by someone like Dahn or Biruitorul. Hobartimus (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True perhaps, but that only addresses part of my point, the other being that Boros is merely a vice-mayor of a reasonably large but still provincial town, and that the third-party sources which we could cite on him, the only ones on which we could base the article if it need exist, are either trivial or describing a passing controversy that is an embarrassment for Boros. These would be, if stretched, the only reasons why Boros would make the GNG cut. Dahn (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in my opinion, it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG --Codrin.B (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: @ Hobartimus, Yes this is a case of selective reading.One should look at the references and also the cross references of those articles in those news sites. For example Evenimentul Zilei, 4,340 mentions and cross-mentions, in Adevărul 1,170 mentions and cross-mentions, Ziua.net is now [1] so the search there which is of news = 8,190 mentions and cross-mentions. The exmaples can go on and on.

One thing that also needs to be reckoned is the while [Janos Boros] has quite many citings not favourable to him, the local Hungarian papers have none. The right way to interpret this is that minority politicians stand to get maligned a lot in majority news dailies. Otherwise how is it possible that not only does [Janos Boros] have positive mentions in the minority Hungarian press, but also they are quite significant in number. This is considering only around 2 percent of the whole Romanian population(Mostly elderly Hungrains) form majority of its readers. Now take the example of Szabadsag = 89 mentions and cross-mentions if you search with with his family name second in the search string. If you search how a Hungarian would write and read - family name first the result for the same search is = 366 mentions and cross-mentions, in another local Hungarian paper Kronika = 53 mentions and cross-mentions.

There are many Romanian politicians and public figures who have entries in Wikipedia. Just a few examples of Romanian Politicians who are Vice-Mayors and have entires: - = Vice Mayor of Iasi - = Vice Mayor of Zarnesti - = Vice Mayor of a Sector in Bucuresti - = Vice Mayor of Baia Mare etc.

Anyone searching for "viceprimar" [2] on Wikipedia.org will find a whole list of pages/entries of Romanian Politicians who are and were Vicemayors themselves. So why the differential treatment?

Warm regards, Hangakiran (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]