Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. --Coredesat 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hucko

AfDs for this article:
Mark Hucko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Second nomination. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. All the sources for the article are websites related to Slovio, possibly created by Hucko himself. Amir E. Aharoni 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with prejudice - I went to Mark Hucko's webpage, and not only does he link to the Wikipedia article on himself, but he posts the following: "It is just these limited minds of the inquisitors which have been suppressing the multi-level cosmological model and who have been erasing it from the search engines and from the Wikipedia. Just because the earth is flat - in their minds - it must remain flat also in the minds of the rest of the world." Given what seems to be an interest in promoting his own content on this website, I'd need even stronger persuasion that his page should be kept on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
with more prejudice - Lower on his page, he also posts the name and home phone number of one of the people who argued for deletion of the Multi-level Cosmology article. I guess it's not kosher to bring that up, as an article should be judged on its own merits and not on a person's behaviour - but I think it's suggestive of something. Just, go read his webpage. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator, but i nominated both of them and i am watching both of them.
This is a non-notable person that created a non-notable language, so why not delete both?
Putting aside notability - i am not even sure that this person is completely real. The language is non-notable, but it is as real as the website slovio.com; but the person could be made up. There are no verifiable external sources, that the name of the creator of Slovio is Mark Hucko. Think about it. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we come up with better sources. As it is, it fails WP:V and WP:A. If Slovio is kept, redirect to there. - Aagtbdfoua 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also as a soap box for an obvious NN person with NN and nonverifiable ideas. He is "not even wrong." I agree with Rspeer that an ongoing target for POV edits must be deleted or protected. Bearian 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the original AFD I opted for delete, then sought assistance from our linguists, which prompted the following:
    Keep. He's the creator of a relatively well-known international auxiliary language (Slovio), so I don't see the reason why his biography should be deleted. We have articles for the creators of such minor IAL projects like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol, do we? So why not him? And in case you're wondering, Coelacan and Dweller; I am a linguist and I'm not in the least a fan of Slovio. — N-true 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, I remain a firm keeper. --Dweller 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for reiterating your opinion.
The problem is that there is no proof whatsoever that this language is indeed well-known.
Slovio is not the same as Novial; Although it didn't achieve the level of popularity of Esperanto, it was a work of a very notable linguist - Otto Jespersen. I am not so sure of what to make of Interlingue and Solresol, but the existence of articles about them is not a very good argument against deletion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, although it is not defined as a policy).
By the way - i am a linguist, too (i go to sleep reading Jespersen every night ...) --Amir E. Aharoni 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple proposal. Let's close this AfD as premature and concentrate on the Slovio article AfD. If Slovio is deemed nn and the article deleted, then as Hucko's greatest notability claim, his biog can be prodded and I for one would have no objections to it going down the pan. If Slovio is demonstrated as notable, it would inform this debate, if indeed anyone still wanted to bring Hucko's biog to AfD at any point. --Dweller 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have hundreds of AfD's under my belt, so i am not an expert on the bureaucratic process, but closing and then re-prodding this article seems quite redundant.
More than that - it is wrong. The problem of verifiability is much worse in the case of Mark Hucko than it is in the case of Slovio. As i said above, Slovio is definitely real, because the website slovio.com is real; it is just badly non-notable. Slovio is real because texts in it appear on slovio.com. But Mark Hucko cannot be verified as a real person - Mark Hucko are two words and a funny photograph on a website that was published by God-knows-who. (This link may shed some light on it: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.slovio.com ; It does mention some Hucko under a Czech flag, although Liptovsky might be a place in Slovakia. I am totally confused by now.)
So the article on Mark Hucko should be deleted even if Slovio is kept, because it seems impossible to find any respected verifiable source for the facts that it presents. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving back here) What's the rush? Establish Slovio notability. If Slovio is deleted, Hucko definitely goes. If Slovio is kept, then let's argue Hucko's notability/existence. --Dweller 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush - both AfD's will take at least a few more days to get closed. It will just be a pain to reopen 3rd nomination for Hucko. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yabut - even if Slovio is notable (and I voted weak keep for that article), it doesn't mean that Hucko is notable enough to have an article on his own. "Notability is not inherited" is an important consideration here. My personal opinion is, Hucko information should be merged into a small section of the Slovio article, if there can be 3rd-party references found that establish his existence. This is a similar argument as to why we at Wikipedia, instead of having an article on e.g. a person who was the victim of a crime, generally only have an article on the crime - unless the victim is notable outside of the crime committed against him. I haven't been convinced by anyone that we should have an argument on Hucko, even if we assume that his Slovio creation is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Hucko, I can presently support the idea of keeping the article on his invented language under the assumption that someone here will soon add third-party links to the article - but I can't support the idea of having an article on Mark Hucko himself, unless someone can prove he has 3rd-party-asserted notability beyond that of his invented language. Also, I feel Amir's above argument is a very convincing one - unless we can find 3rd party proof that Mark Hucko isn't (say) an internet sockpuppet, we shouldn't have an article on him. Does WP:LIVING even allow us to have an article on a person based entirely on "his" own cranky webpage? If so, I think that leaves us on shaky legal ground. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I maintain that if Slovio is deleted, Hucko must be deleted. If Slovio is kept, it importantly informs the debate on Hucko, not that Hucko necessarily must be kept too. --Dweller 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, giving you your point, we still need to determine whether there's any third-party proof of his existence, to satisfy WP:LIVING, and now's as good a time as any to do that. Though I also say above that even if Slovio is notable, notability is not inherited and therefore this argument could be independent. I'd rather the Slovio AfD be withdrawn instead of this one, for reasons given above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced. Being a shameless self-promoter is not much of a claim to fame. Friday (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are maybe three reliably sourced sentences in this article and they wouldn't be out of place as a mention in Slovio. The rest of the stuff in this BIO is unimportant, unsourced, or both. SchmuckyTheCat
  • Delete - No notability asserted outside of self-published sources. According to WP:V, articles should not be primarily supported by such sources. - Crockspot 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete level of verifiability almost nil. Level of notability... not much better, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal promotion, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No evidence that this person even exists; crankish claims; violates just about every Wikipedia policy (attribution, verification, notability, reliable source and the rest) Even is Slovio is notable, that does not imply that Mark Hucko is notable. His creation of non-notable psuedoscience also doesn't qualify for notability. Nor does unproven claims about immortality research. This should have been speedy deleted, instead of wasting Wikipedia's disk space with this AFD. Life, Liberty, Property 02:46, 3 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hucko_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138056244"