Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Dominik Takács

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. Michig (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Dominik Takács

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

over 5 years after the article was created. this fails WP:VICTIM, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There doesn't seem to be much in English-language sources but there was some international coverage (e.g., the cited article in the Brisbane Times) article claims extended coverage in Hungarian media, which might be enough for notability. Note that the age of the article is irrelevant: if the subject was notable five years ago, it is still notable now and continued coverage is not a requirement. Also, I don't think that WP:VICTIM applies here, since the article is about the event and not, for example, a biography of Dominic Takács. Dricherby (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how about WP:PERSISTENCE ? LibStar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE means that the event needs to have coverage for a period of time after it happens; WP:NOTTEMPORARY means that an event doesn't still need to have coverage five years later. If the incident really did "dominate Hungarian media for several weeks", that might be enough to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE as not being just "a burst or spike of news reports". Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting significance, so fails WP:NOT policy. LGA _talk^edits 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article was written, when we did not know that this poor boy was killed by the family dog. So, according to WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this article does not meet the criteria of notability. I think, WP:VICTIM is not relevant here. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the page was created on 18 October 2007, six days after the mother admitted that Dominik was killed by their dogs. The only major piece of information that's in the current article but wasn't in the original is that police were considering charges against the parents. Dricherby (talk) 13:10, 9 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.