Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident

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. czar 21:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagybörzsöny ‘Warlock’ incident[edit]

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

The article is hoax, or at least fiction, see details at talkpage. Before nomination, I asked User:TheValeyard to clarify the status of the article. This incident does not appear in Hungarian historiography. Norden1990 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fiction, pure and simple, taken from a novel. Nobody heard of the event in Hungary, no history books mention it, so it can't be sourced. --Pagony (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be identified. Odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HOAX - Delete - The one source cited is a publisher's webpage for a novel, possibly a very recent one. Fictional works are not historical sources. I suspect the whole thing is trying to advertise the book in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2017 (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.