Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/László Bulcsú (2nd nomination)

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. I think the consensus is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulcsú László

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

Croatian linguist who seems to fail all of the nine notability criteria listed at

WP:ACADEMIC. The article was already discussed and deleted in May 2011, only to be recreated in June 2013 by User:Slavić, who has been indef blocked in the meantime over disruptive comments on article's talk page. The same user had also created boilerplate stubs on the same subject on the French, German, Czech, Latin and Slovenian Wikipedias on June 12 and 13, probably hoping that multiple stubs about the subject would lend some weight to his claims to the subject's notability. It would seem that the perceived importance of the subject stems from his bizarrely purist ideas about Croatian language and, although the man has indeed taught unrelated courses at Zagreb University, his influence on Croatian linguistics is marginal at best, proved by the fact that his sole published work is a Croatian translation of a poem from the Akkadian language. Timbouctou (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PS: I wouldn't call the language of his translations as Croatian, because it's unintelligible to most of the speakers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to put the Slavić episode behind us and focus on the topic. The specific academic criteria are not clearly met, but the topic might have a chance at general notability: he was the head of a fledgling department at the
Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb at one point; Babić and Katičić worked with and wrote about him; his funky orthography has on occasion caused a fair few raised eyebrows in Croatia, but arguably few enough that we don't even have a proper critical review. All of this might amount to nothing in the eyes of a typical English reader. All this thinking about subtle nuances in notability inevitably reminds me of Barbara Radulović and Croatia-Mongolia relations and then I must retire :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This is far more than a stub, and I see no other problems with the text either; WP:BIO compliance is the only thing we need to care about here. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My position is the same as in
WP:GNG. The most damning indication (if not exactly proof) of this is the fact that, as of 2011, and according to online sources, the four leading Croatian daily newspapers never as much as mentioned his name. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep By the comparison with other Croatian linguists, he stands in the very peak, for there is rarely an academic figure that enjoys such respect by colleagues and students in his field as László does. Also László meets 1st, 3rd, 5th and probably 9th criteria for academics, thus I see no problem in keeping this article. As I see with Slavić and Štambuk, the question of this article is only a ideological one. Thus by lifting us beyond this childishness, and lets truly judge László by his merits, which are, if I may say, substantial. ~~Vukopisac (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
(sock vote struck out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

further discussion with sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What is your evidence for any of that?
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Both well renown and highly acclaimed Croatian linguists; Stjepan Babić and Radoslav Katičić, wrote works, and speak extremely highly of him. As well, I am a former student of him and owe him much of my view points and education, and he have had extreme influence on me and my generation (there are also a lot of stories on University roaming around about him, due to his behaviour, so to say). Also, he is regarded among students of assyriology (as well as many colleagues) as "Bog i batina" ("God and stick"). Shortly speaking: there is no assyriology, Akkadian liguistics, machine translation... without László in Croatia, and not only Croatia. Vukopisac (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence and hear-say don't matter, Slavić. What matters is references, references, references. And you don't really have any. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:PROF criteria: #1 - does not add up, #3 - zero evidence in the article (the only membership in Croatia that unquestionably qualifies is the full

HAZU membership), #5 - just might be close, depending on the interpretation, #9 - zero evidence in the article. As already noted, personal accounts do not count towards notability at all. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply put, we have no proof at all that the subject even meets

WP:ACADEMIC. Timbouctou (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The poetry of László meets highest wealth of expression in Croatian language, this perhaps alone is worthy of Wikipedia article, of his translations are highly think of (especially his collection of translations Hvalopj'ev S'ūncu), his work is a sole example of Akkadian literature in Croatian. To say clearly there is simply no proof that he is not notable, nor there is any proof that he should be excluded from Wikipedia, as he meets criteria for inclusion. Vukopisac (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal opinion, thinly-veiled sockuppet of Slavić (talk · contribs). You have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim that László is notable as a poet or translator. He has received no notable awards in either category. We are not required to provide "proof that he should be excluded", au contraire - you are required to provide proof that he should be included. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim that László is notable as a poet or translator. - Well, where is your evidence that he isn't, well you might say: He has received no notable awards in either category. - very original, if I may say, neither did Dostoyevsky, nor Hegel, nor Krleža, nor many others..., well this isn't a very good proof after all. We are not required to provide "proof that he should be excluded", au contraire - you are required to provide proof that he should be included. - Well of course, "I the Platon, I am the Truth!", well this is simply not enough, the article as it is, provides more then good notability, and if he isn't notable, how so that we spend so many words on that matter, in fact he is so notable or not notable that you and Slavić ware and are in preparation to shed blood and warring to end times, by the way I know you would prefer that I am Slavić - I don't really know why, perhaps then my opinion won't count, but sorry to disappoint you, only thing I have in common with Slavić is hatred for Croatian Vukovians and belief that László is worthy of Wikipedia article, which is, if you ask any linguist (in Croatia, or in the world) the undeniable fact. Vukopisac (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed. I or anyone else am not required to provide evidence that László is not notable as poet, translator, linguist or whatever. You are required to provide such evidence for article to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which are based on notability. Krleža has received many awards and decorations, and those older writers are notable by other criteria (they have hundreds of work dedicated to their opus alone). You are Slavić alright - using a newly registered username, writing in the same language of obsolete korienski pravopis orthography and utilizing obscure substandard dialects - you've also authored hr:Vukopis as all as wikt:vukopis (under IPs and other sockuppets - all indefblocked!). Now when you see all your work undone, and the vulgar language and silly threats not working, you feign alternate identity in an attempt to salvage whatever you can. Opinions are irrelevant, what matters is references and evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "I the atheist am not required to provide evidence that God doesn't exist, but you the believer, you are!" - now please, whose logic is flawed? You can continue to call me Slavić, of course; there is impossible that there are two idiots writing in "obsolete" korienski pravopis orthography, since half academic elite is writing as such (all nationalists I suppose), well so much about the "obsolete". Who knows? perhaps I even know Slavić personally. By the way I did not authored hr:Vukopis, my good friend did, I only was trying to put it on English Wiki, unsuccessful I must admit, even though the author of Croatian hr:Vukopis, warn me about Serbo-Croatian chauvinism on English Wikipedia, and that any article opposing the Serbo-Croatian dogma will be sooner or later deleted. I have no intention to wage war with you, all of this is childish, since you mind is set, your logic is that one of Karl Popper. Also I see that you decided the fate of László long before trail, very typical for fascism and communism, perhaps even for democracy, then we can't really have a discussion, now can we? Vukopisac (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to remind discussion participants that
WP:CREATIVE applies - and Laszlo again fails on all 4 counts. Timbouctou (talk) 01:07, 2 August 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.