Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter

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 merge to Stevan Harnad. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promoting article and fails Wikipedia:Notability. This group has a Facebook page with 125 likers (as of May 11, 2013). I think we should merge this article into Stevan Harnad (who anyway created this article). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See now for citations for notability, as requested. I have added eight. Note also that Norden1990 has been quite active deleting passages in Wikipedia that are critical of the current Hungarian government. Unlike Norden1990, I always edit non-anonymously, but I have to point out that the suggestion that I post on Hungary for self-promotion is a little absurd. I am a university professor of cognitive science. If I post about Hungary, it has nothing to do with my line of work or my career. I do it in order to draw Wikipedia readers' attention to the state of democracy in Hungary today. If there is self-promotion going on, it is by the many partisans of the current Hungarian government who keep patrolling Wikipedia to delete anything critical of the current government. (I am not accusing Norden1990 of being one of these Hungarian government partisans: I have no idea who Norden1990 is.) My postings should be left to stand, in the interests of providing balance. I am, by the way, on the Board of Directors of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Forum, but that too is not by way of self-promotion, but an attempt to help restore democracy in Hungary. Stevan Harnad 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Dear Mr. Harnad, could you give me an example, when I edit anonymously? What you are saying is not correct, formerly I also wrote about the Hungarian media law, constitution, debate in the EP, György Matolcsy's unorthodox economic policy, all of which are critical points of the Orbán cabinet. "draw Wikipedia readers' attention to the state of democracy", "attempt to help restore democracy in Hungary", these are all political POVs (Believe me, I am free to criticize the government and I usually done that). For the delete: The Fidesz article is about the party itself, and Politics of Hungary is about Hungarian political system. Recent political events and statements do not belong there. We have article of Constitution of Hungary for the constitution and Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán for recent events and activities of the government. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Mr. Norden1990: (1) If your name is indeed Norden1990, then I apologize. I thought it was a pseudonym. (2) The phrases you quote from me above are not from wikipedia articles but from talk pages, where I assume one can explain one's POV. My own POV on the current Hungarian government is definitely not neutral, but I agree that the wording in the articles themselves should be from a neutral POV, so I appreciate PamD's change from "The Charter's goal is to help support democracy in Hungary against the increasingly undemocratic developments currently taking place..." to "The Charter's goal is to help support democracy in Hungary against the increasingly undemocratic developments currently seen to be taking place..." (3) I also agree now that just posting a pointer to the article in which the Fidesz/Orban/constitution/democracy developments are described is better than describing them verbatim in each article to which they are relevant. Stevan Harnad 11:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

99% of Wikipedia users edit under pseudonym name, but I can reassure you, I am not member of the government or its paraselene. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Norden1990: That may well be, but you asked "could you give me an example, when I edit anonymously" and I replied. I am quite happy to accept your reassurance that "Norden1990" is "not member of the government or its paraselene." I also accept your (welcome) POV neutralization of the language of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter article. But not its deletion. For my own part, I choose to edit non-anonymously because I think [except in exceptional cases] people should be publicly answerable for public comments, especially comments about named individuals. (But that's just my POV...) Stevan Harnad 14:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. 3 of the supplied sources are blogs. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to LibStar: 3/8 sources are blogs means 5/8 sources are not blogs. Stevan Harnad 11:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (Removed sentence added by someone other than me.) Stevan Harnad 03:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep a mere 2 hits [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stevan Harnad, per nomination. It looks to me like seven of the eight provided citations are to non-notable blogs and/or non-notable online-only publications. The one notable citation seems to be a short article in The Jewish Tribune - not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Korny O'Near:

1. It would not be appropriate to merge the WP entry for Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter to the WP entry for me (Stevan Harnad), since I am not one of its Founding Directors but merely its French-Language Spokesperson ^[1]
2. Besides, there is already a pointer to the WP entry for Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter in the WP entry for me.
3. It is incorrect that 7/8 references are blogs. The Canadian Hungarian Journal ^[2] -- whose Editor, Professor Christpher Adam^[3] of Carleton University, is also one of the Founding Directors of the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter -- is a journal registered in Canada and published since 2004.
4. Another one of the Founding Directors of Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter, Professor Eva Balogh ^[4]of Yale University (ret.) is Editor of the Hungarian Spectrum ^[5] which -- although admittedly "just" a blog -- can hardly be described as non-notable ^[6]

Stevan Harnad 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sticking to my opinion. I didn't say that 7 of the references were blogs, I said 7 of them were either blogs or online-only publications - of which the Canadian Hungarian Journal seems to be the latter. Either blogs or online publications can be notable, of course, but in this case I don't see the evidence. Google searches on their names (those references don't work on this talk page, by the way, but I did the searches myself) don't seem to make the case for their notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.