Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Molnar

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. Mkdw ^talk 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Molnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP, written like a prosified version of a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability and no particularly strong reliable sourcing. His notability as a businessman seems to boil down to "got named as a local business leader in a listicle"; his notability as a politician begins and ends at "district chair for a political party" and "non-winning candidate for city council"; and his notability as a writer is stacked onto self-published books and symposium papers metasourced to themselves. And the referencing here is extremely dependent on primary sources and blogs and Twitter tweets, with the number of reliable sources being nowhere near enough to constitute a WP:GNG pass. I can't actually prove anything outright, but this reads and sources an awful lot like the kind of puffed-up article that typically results from either a paid-editing public relations job or a person trying to WP:AUTOBIO themselves — a concern not exactly assuaged by the fact that its creator has never edited any other page on Wikipedia but this one. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD, of the 29 references, 16 are primary, 12 secondary, and 1 tertiary. On analysis this article has been edited by numerous individuals and often edited -- removing empty references, puffing, grammatical errors by many contributors, etc -- both by myself and other editors. Not sure who the creator of the article is, but as the primary editor I have edited many other pages -- mostly political and LGBT-related. When editing articles, it is important to focus on 'circular references' to itself. Many of the articles referenced noted here are by reliable sources globally-recognized periodicals on the subject, and can't be considered puffing. Any references to Twitter tweets or Facebook posts should be deleted per policy, and many have been removed, although that doesn't nullify the notability of this subject and garners a WP:GNG pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasduncan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in the article do you think are building a GNG pass? If I removed every source here that's contributing nothing toward making him notable per WP:GNG, literally all that would be left is two citations to OutSmart, offering no reason why he could possibly be considered more than just locally notable. Nearly all of the sources you're counting as "secondary" ones are mere namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him, blogs, listicles or routine profiles in business directories, not notability-assisting sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Molnar has interviews all over the world and is in periodicals in the US, Canada, and Europe for his work with the global charity Twainbow plus other work. This article definitely needs to be cleaned up, getting rid of listicles and routine profiles in business directories. It's gotten really wonky looking with too many people contributing and style inconsistencies. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. I'll work on this and update his secondary and tertiary sources. ChasDun (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't assist notability either. If he's talking about himself, then an interview has the same problems as any other self-published content (people can and do indulge in inflated advertorial bumf, such as a musician's PR kit hyping their current single as a "hit" regardless of whether it's actually charting anywhere), and if he's talking about something else then he fails to be the subject of the reference. The only type of coverage that assists notability at all is content written in the third person by somebody other than himself, in an array of publications geographically diverse enough to demonstrate that his notability is more than purely local. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong delete This guy is an unremarkable local politician with absolutely no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 30 April 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.