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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hedvig Malina[edit]

Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The primary reason for deletion is non-notability of the subject. The only notable act is an involvement in a case that was reported mainly in Slovak and Hungarian media and briefly in some other countries. Therefore, the article is not a biography but an article about the case the subject is involved in, which fails notability guidelines per WP:BIO1E.
The case is already reported in the article '2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs'.
Moreover, the article is highly inaccurate, uses almost entirely a single Hungarian source. After I tried to correct the article, mainly move it to the correct name Hedviga Malinová and put up tags I found appropriate, it has been guarded (vandalized) by 2 editors: Hobartimus (talk · contribs) and Squash Racket (talk · contribs). Their bias can be easily seen in their comments, for example, at my talk page and in their contributions.
Their attitudes toward the case and overall reasons why and how to write articles are illustrated in the off-topic debate at Talk:Hedvig Malina. The debate also illustrates that the article is not a biography but a hub for editors who want to push a specific POV and link unrelated cases and topics.--Svetovid (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I would kindly ask you to remove all degrading comments on me and Hobartimus, then we can continue. Thank you in advance. Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Notable political case. // Gargaj (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, you confirmed that case is (maybe) notable; the person on its own is not and actually supported my reasons for deletion.--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, we might as well move the article to "Hedvig Malina case" and you'd be happy? It's more about the case than the person already. (= Weak argument.) // Gargaj (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you confirmed what I said.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's about the fact that it's about the case rather than the person, yes. But then, so is Rodney King. In a funny turn, however, you just confirmed the notability of the article. // Gargaj (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't confirm anything. That's what guidelines and policies and their interpretations are for.
            Anyway, why not just expand the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, which also does not look very notable at the moment?--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure that this nomination is coming from the best angle. Perhaps the article should go towards one of the mediation options instead of AfD. matt91486 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give reasons for keep please. Deletion "processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave a reason. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that the content belongs, it's perfectly notable. This debate belongs in mediation or arbitration, not AfD. matt91486 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Eminently notable, received wide media coverage. Article is very well sourced for a young article, other sources are also plentiful can easily be added if requested, so sourcing will not be a problem. Hobartimus (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eminently notable, received wide media coverage." Any sources to back that up? BTW, a wide media coverage in Slovakia and Hungary do not make it notable in English Wikipedia.
    "other sources are also plentiful can easily be added if requested" - When I requested other sources you removed the tag. Where are the sources then?
    "sourcing will not be a problem." - "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no rule that says a topic must have received coverage in English-language sources. In any case, there are a number of English sources right here). Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Svetovid, Google shows an incredible number of sources, if you want to request sources on the talk page or via using templates, I'll be happy to add them, just point out the sentence(s) that need extra sources. Hobartimus (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 16 reports from Hungarian media (that are repeating) in English is not "an incredible number of sources." I did request more sources to show notability some days ago and you removed the tag without explanation, so playing the good side now is a cheap trick.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read more carefully. I never said that all the sources are in English. The article stands at 21 sources now, not bad for a young article. If you request more, point out the sentence or the specific part of the article you think is under-sourced.Hobartimus (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This nomination for deletion seems to have more to do with some ongoing dispute between editors. From an outsiders perspective the article seems quite notable and should have a place in the 'pedia. Xdenizen (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't say why it seems notable. Again, this is not a head count.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the article, considered the arguments advanced by those before me and I agree with them. The article is notable. I have to say I object to your somewhat aggressive style in this AfD. Your continual suggestions that "this is not a head count" imply that those who disagree with you are not acting in good faith. We are. You proposed deletion and we have expressed our views on the matter. I would also add that, like some others, I question your good faith in making this nomination in the first place. I suspect you're trying to export a content dispute to AfD. Xdenizen (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO and this is not the appropriate venue for content disputes. Furthermore, comments such as this [1] question whether or not this nom was made in good faith. RFerreira (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the history of the article and Hobartimus' contributions to find out why I called him a troll. Do you think that removing tags and reverting valid edits is 'in good faith', especially when others and I have seen him doing it many times before?--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia is under prosecution now for abuse of power because of his behavior in the early period of the investigation. The Prime Minister also counts as non-notable? There were months in 2006 when you could hardly open a Hungarian newspaper without having to read the extensive coverage of that case. As you can read in the article, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives asked the Slovak Prime Minister for a fair process. We may move the article to Hedvig Malina case, but then propose a similar move regarding the Rodney King case too as Gargaj pointed out above. Squash Racket (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Human rights has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be a politically motivated AfD...Balloonman (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - perhaps rename "Hedvig Malina case" (but then do the same with Rodney King [adding: or perhaps more appropriately, given the "it may have happened but it wasn't racist" motif: rename Stephen Lawrence]. As other contributors have indicated, there is quite extensive coverage, including coverage-of-the-coverage, and some degree of international concern (both in US and EU). POV does need some work as the article stands. I'm trying VERY hard to assume good faith and not go for "speedy keep". --Paularblaster (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This article is relevant, but needs substantial revision. My problems with the article are following:
  • It only cites 8 sources, 7 of them are of hungarian origin, only 1 is of slovak origin and there is no foreign "neutral" source. (Repeated sources from the same newspaper can only be counted as one, because it is the opinion of one group of people, probably one author, only.) By this, it probably violates WP:NPOV. Additional slovak and/or foreign sources should be added and until then, the article should be tagged as POV and requiring citations.
  • Most of the sources are written in magyar language, so it is not possible to verify (for most Wikipedia users), whether the cited information is really authentic. [Adding: Therefore, the references should be modified to be compliant with WP:V, more precisely WP:RSUE]
  • The article violates WP:BIO1E. It is not a biography (WP:BIO), but only the description of a single event. Therefore, it should be changed to an event description, as WP:BIO1E demands. (And the same is true for Rodney King, because "his" page is dedicated to the one event. Nevertheless, the Rodney King page contains much more biographical information than the Hedvig Malina page.) The introduction on the Hedvig Malina page is definitely not an introduction to a biography: "Hedvig Malina is an ethnic Hungarian student from Horné Mýto, Slovakia, who was allegedly beaten by Slovakian nationalists ...".
  • The cause is still not closed, there are several court processes and investigations in progress, so the article probably violates WP:NOT#NEWS. At least, claims like "15 months after the beating" or "the ones who committed the hate crime" should be reformulated carefully to keep neutral point of view, journalistic objectivity and presumption of innocence for all involved persons and subjects.
  • The page uses a mutilated version of the person's real name, which is Hedviga Malinová. (The name "Hedviga Malinová" is, among other sources, used at the page of SMK, the political party representing the hungarian minority in Slovakia: [[2]])147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP tries to insert a renaming process too. Available English language sources refer to her by the original, Hungarian name (Hedvig Malina). The Slovakized version of her name is only used in Slovakia, even by a Hungarian party in the public due to constant pressure by the Slovak authorities. We are talking about a large minority in a member of the European Union, where minority rights should be respected, so I think we can keep the name Hedvig Malina here. Especially in this case. Squash Racket (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is, "what is her official/real name?", not "what is her hungarian name?" You write, that "Available English language sources refer to her by the original, Hungarian name (Hedvig Malina)." But the only two English language sources cited by the Hedvig Malina article use the name "Hedviga Malinová". Please, give us the sources you are writing about. If possible, sources, which are not just translation of .hu articles.
• You write about slovakization, but changing the original name to hungarian equivalent could be called magyarization. Please, stop using this kind of argumentation, as it might be offensive to both sides.
• Not using the 'ová' suffix becomes accepted in Slovakia and it is very easy to remove the -ova suffix from official documents for an ethnic Hungarian ([3]), so I really don't see a reason why they would use a wrong name. I doubt, that the "pressure by the Slovak authorities" would persuade the representatives of Magyars in Slovakia to use a wrong name. Especially when SMK is doing a strong opposition against the slovak government in this cause.
• Anyway, the name is the least important problem of the article. I don't think it is worth the attention it gets.147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 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.