Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istvan Kovats

Add links
From 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. Cúchullain t/c 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Kovats[edit]

Istvan Kovats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I declined a speedy for this article being nonsense, but I don't believe that this the soldier meets WP:BIO. Google searches for this individual return very few relevant results. There are also few relevant results in Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The author of this article, MagyarTürk (d), is publishing through Wikipedia anecdotal memories about his grandfather. Besides not meeting any of the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO, the article's content doesn't comply with any of the three core guidelines of standards for inclusion in Wikipedia: It doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability; It violates Wikipedia:NPOV; And it not kosher under the Wikipedia:NOR policy (the content relies on original research by the author into the history of his own family). The author is also involved in a good number of edit-wars and is actually blocked for this reason. Eklir (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically as per Eklir. Whether it's really the author's (great-?)grandfather or something like that I don't know, but it sure looks like just barely escaping A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He says so on his user page: "My grand-grandfather Istvan Kovats was a Hungarian valiant soldier in the World War One." The links he provides below here are pointing to 1910-1918 lists of soldiers, but they are not searchable. There are a lot of other people around with that name though but none that I can relate to the grandfather soldier. Anyhow, things being what they are, we presumably all have grandfathers that were valiant soldiers in their times which doesn't mean they qualifiy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eklir (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings. Hmm...This site was created by the "Balaton Arts" group. http://www.google.hu/search?hl=hu&q=69.+gyalogezred&btnG=Google+keres%C3%A9s&meta= (Search 69esek, sorry for the long google link, I couldn't paste here the exactly link) You can read about him in this page. For example here : "69-ES VITÉZEK ARCKÉPCSARNOKA" You can find him. Etc. And that pictures are mine. I also can put my identity card, with my signature with the photographs. MagyarTürk —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: I don't see how your link relates to the individual we are discussing. His name is not mentioned in any of the links. According to an online translator "gyalogezred" means "infantry regiment" in Hungarian, but that and the "69" you put before that search don't seem to me to be related to this person. Could you clarify how those links establish this person's notability? Cunard (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it was the sixty-ninth infantry regiment. In "69-es vitézek arcképcsarnoka" there is he with pictures. But I have also thought it is "free encyclopaedia " well he is not so famous, as Michael Wittman, or Eric Hartman, He was a hero of a village (Soponya) in public esteem. MagyarTürk
  • Delete, per nom. Little/no coverage by independent reliable sources. Does not pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assuming everything to be well-sourced, he still isn't notqble. Being "the tallest soldier in the Austro-Hungarian infantry" is not sufficient. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I thought this discussion was sailing too close to WP:BITE, and so I left a message on the article creator's talk page.
    • I told him that I thought that those awarded their nation's highest award, like the Congressional Medal of Honor, or Victoria Cross, were boosted into being considered "notable" solely by virtue of the award. Did I tell him the truth?
    • Peter did reply, on my talk page, that "Valiant" was the Hungarian equivalent of a Victoria Cross. If that list of soldiers other participants here rapidly discounted, was actually a list of the Hungarian equivalent of a list Victoria Cross winners, then, wouldn't they be very relevant?
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found Wikipedia:Notability (awards) -- which says it has been retired. And, while it says that some awards, like the Nobel Prize, or Congressional Medal of Honor, made the winner notable, it didn't say all national level awards made the winner notable. FWIW I see this as Americo-centricism. Personally I don't regard the Congressional Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross as being as notable as a Nobel, by at least one order of magnitude. And if the CMoH is going to be given this precedence then every nation's highest award should be. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as can be seen, "valiant" is used as an adjective in "valiant soldier". Anyway, there is no Kovats on the list of recipients of the Order of the Valiant (in Hungarian, Vitézi Rend). As far as the link he gives is conernced, it needs a user name and a password, all this in Hungarian. Eklir (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you look at the reply the article creator left on my talk pages? I really think we are sailing way to close to violating the don't bite the newbies policy here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've read the creator's comment on your talk page, but you nor the creator has provided links to any reliable source in either Hungarian or English to assert this person's notability. If you can find at least two reliable sources about this individual and the award he won, then maybe you have a case about his notability. I can't even find enough sources about the "valiant award" he won, which leads me to believe that this may not have been Hungary's highest military award. There must be some reliable sources (books, old newspapers, etc.) about this award if it is the Hungarian equivalent of a Victoria Cross. Furthermore, how is this discussion violating WP:BITE? This discussion has been civil with no personal attacks or accusations. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said before, the single link MagyarTürk is providing is the only source we have for the article he authors on his grandfather. That link is accessible under (paste into your browser: "http://" and "69esek.gportal.hu/picview.php?prt=418392&gid=2161598&index=6"; you have to paste because that hyperlink is blacklisted on Wikipedia). The grandfather is represented there as Vitéz Kováts István tizedes which tranalates as "Soldier Kovats Istvan private first class". Vitéz, besides meaning "soldier", also translates as the adjective "courageous, valiant" as in vitéz rend "valiant order" or "valiant medal". The vitéz rend is the lowest military distinction there was in 1910-1918 and it certainly doesn't say anywhere in that link that Istvan Kovats was the awardee of any REND "medal". The picture there, copyrighted to Balaton Arts, is also appearing in MagyarTürk's article (Image:Ükapám.JPG) as "created ... entirely by myself". In any case, are we all going to be entitled to articles about our grandfathers? Eklir (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, there were 122,000 such decorations given by Hungary in WWI: 96,000 for soldiers and 26,000 for officers, so it's not an equivalent to the Victoria Cross. [1] bogdan (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Geo Swan: MagyarTürk isn't a newbie protected by BITE. He has several months of relentless disruptive editing under his belt, and has had plenty of warnings about using sources and all the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been contributing here for four years, and have over 30,000 edits under my belt. But there are still aspects of the wikipedia's increasingly complicated policies that I have no experience with. And, in those areas, I return to regarding myself as a newbie. Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the unknown american hereos, such as Isaiah Dorman? Who is it? Doncsecz (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fully agree with Doncsecz by the way I wrote more informations on Geo Swan's discussion few days ago, or yesterday. I was busy. MagyarTürk (talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Why can't we keep this one? If you can keep the biographies of each american soldier, even those who only polished the boots of general Custer. On the other hand this article can be important to WikiProject Hungary.Carlos72 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good keeping argument. The editors who have said keep in this deletion discussion have yet to provide even one reliable source in either Hungarian or English for this individual. If this individual has not received any coverage in Hungarian, then how can he pass WP:BIO and WP:V? Cunard (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the more guys. By the way, once I have heard about him in a folk festival, on "Aba napok" "Days of Aba".

Lopbisz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment: as long as no sources are forthcoming, all these WP:ILIKEIT "votes" are worthless. This is not a vote, so don't bother voting if you have nothing concrete to corroborate notability with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I gave many sources. I am sure, that you just don't like me, that's why that you want delete Istvan Kovats's article.MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Where are your sources? Could you directly link to them here? As I have said above, you still haven't provided any. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per WP:NOR. My opinion would change if the article included reliable references. In that case it would be fine. However, as it stands, I would give the nod for deletion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2008 (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/Istvan_Kovats&oldid=1070196030"