Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek

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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek[edit]

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

This is an autobiography (created by User:Ryemaybee, but extensively edited by User:Totosy, two being probably the same person). It was submitted to the WP:AFC process by User:Totosy, but was declined (Draft:Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek). The user nevertheless posted the article into the main namespace using his alternate account. The articles lacks reliable sources with significant coverage to prove the notability of the subject. I was able to find many books and articles written by this subject, but did find only a few poor sources (ie. [1]) with no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMOTION and failing WP:PROF, among other reasons. NickCT (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a distinguished academic who meets WP:PROF. His CV lists his publications, including a number of books with reviews in several journals. (The CV is not in itself an independent source, but I hope nobody is going to be silly enough to claim that he has invented non-existing reviews for his CV.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he meets WP:PROF -- which has fairly high standards. Also fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under "Specific criteria notes" at WP:PROF, it is clarified that "reviews of the person's work" are one way to show that an academic has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". These reviews also constitute the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. --Hegvald (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hegvald I see no reviews of this person's work in that article. Even without references, no claim is made which meets WP:ACADEMIC. This is an unreferenced biography and it requires multiple references to stay. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reviews are listed there whether you see them or not. And it is not an article. It's his CV. --Hegvald (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh wait, Bluerasberry, I see. You never clicked on "Download" to open the PDF, did you? If you do, you'll see that it has a list of publications and for each of several books in that list, it also lists a number of reviews. --Hegvald (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not. This person has a long CV. Still, even if a person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, their Wikipedia article can be deleted if that is not meet Wikipedia's standards. There may be someone in that CV to establish notability but unless something is pulled from it and put the article I will still say delete. It is not obvious to me what establishes notability here. Thanks for following up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a BLP with no independent sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a link to the journal of which he is editor. As for reviews of his works, I went through the entire 21 page CV looking for the word "Review" and none that I found were reviews of his work. Hegvald, could you list here the reviews that you have found? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look, for instance, at "4.1.6 1998. Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application.", line 6 of that paragraph has a section beginning "Book reviews", listing (unless I miscounted) nineteen reviews of this book alone. Did you check the listed journals? When doing so, did you find that these were not actually reviews of his book? --Hegvald (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was able to find one (searches in some of the journals don't return anything under his name). The reviewer concludes "However, the book's dogmatic tone, frequent typographical and syntactic errors, and uneven development detract from its often stimulating argument." Hmmm. Not a good advertisement for the book or the press, which was Rodopi/Brill. This was a review in a specialist journal. None of the others I tried worked out for me. Some may precede the journals being online. Basically, I am unable to verify the reviews. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (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.