Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (3rd 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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Janos Boros

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Janos Boros
• Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (4th nomination)

Janos Boros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) * Note : This is the second, not the third nomination

Support Not notable. I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. He does not possess an article not even on Romanian Wikipedia Iaaasi (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - a minor local official not covered in any meaningful depth by independent sources. Yes, local newspapers did feature his name from time to time, but only in passing, or in tangential relation to a corruption scandal (tellingly not mentioned by this promotional article). Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN requirements. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vice-Mayor? Delete as per Biruitorul. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I originally closed this as delete, but in light of the previous AfD a fuller discussion is probably more appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I found this in the previous discussion, can anyone confirm if it was legitimate?

"As to the aspect of finding mention in Romanian media, 61 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 37 mentions in Adevărul, 41 mentions in Ziua, 200 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 128 mentions in hotnews.ro are significant." Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't manipulate the information. The correct data are: 4 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 8 mentions in Adevărul, 0 mentions in Ziua, 123 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 100 mentions in hotnews.ro (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Did you read the above? I said I found it being posted in the previous discussion. Obviously the listed results show the data at the time of the first Afd, which was in 2009. Unless they were manipulated in 2009. Seems a case of selective reading to me. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete What has changed here since the last AfD? Oh, yeah: mudslinging. Here I am, standing by my earlier comment: "I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage that he got in the press is, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively owed to a local corruption scandal which implicated him (an incident which, tellingly, is not even covered by the article). The news is of marginal interest even locally (in Cluj County, that is), and the text, which is most likely promotional, is horribly written. This is a quick way to make oneself look important, not an encyclopedic topic." Dahn (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Dahn, I reviewed the talk page comment that you cite and In my view it was an inappropriate remark. Without a doubt there are some legitimate concerns with this article, such as tone and it's creator's list of contributions making a description of "most likely promotional" accurate. However these problems can sometime be fixed by rewriting by someone else. I think the ideal solution here would be a stub written by someone like Dahn or Biruitorul. Hobartimus (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True perhaps, but that only addresses part of my point, the other being that Boros is merely a vice-mayor of a reasonably large but still provincial town, and that the third-party sources which we could cite on him, the only ones on which we could base the article if it need exist, are either trivial or describing a passing controversy that is an embarrassment for Boros. These would be, if stretched, the only reasons why Boros would make the GNG cut. Dahn (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I appreciate your suggestion, but why would a stub be justified? "Deputy Mayor" (of a provincial city, no less) is not a notable position, per WP:POLITICIAN. And there simply aren't references confirming notability per WP:BIO, the standard there being Boros should have been the subject of multiple published secondary reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, in my opinion, it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG --Codrin.B (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: @ Hobartimus, Yes this is a case of selective reading.One should look at the references and also the cross references of those articles in those news sites. For example Evenimentul Zilei, 4,340 mentions and cross-mentions, in Adevărul 1,170 mentions and cross-mentions, Ziua.net is now [1] so the search there which is of news = 8,190 mentions and cross-mentions. The exmaples can go on and on.

One thing that also needs to be reckoned is the while [Janos Boros] has quite many citings not favourable to him, the local Hungarian papers have none. The right way to interpret this is that minority politicians stand to get maligned a lot in majority news dailies. Otherwise how is it possible that not only does [Janos Boros] have positive mentions in the minority Hungarian press, but also they are quite significant in number. This is considering only around 2 percent of the whole Romanian population(Mostly elderly Hungrains) form majority of its readers. Now take the example of Szabadsag = 89 mentions and cross-mentions if you search with with his family name second in the search string. If you search how a Hungarian would write and read - family name first the result for the same search is = 366 mentions and cross-mentions, in another local Hungarian paper Kronika = 53 mentions and cross-mentions.

There are many Romanian politicians and public figures who have entries in Wikipedia. Just a few examples of Romanian Politicians who are Vice-Mayors and have entires: - Camelia Gavril, Vice Mayor of Iasi - Romeo Olteanu, Vice Mayor of Zarnesti - Ioan Todiraș, Vice Mayor of a Sector in Bucuresti - Mircea Dolha, Vice Mayor of Baia Mare etc.

Anyone searching for "viceprimar" [2] on Wikipedia.org will find a whole list of pages/entries of Romanian Politicians who are and were Vicemayors themselves. So why the differential treatment?

Warm regards, Hangakiran (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All those examples are from Romanian Wikipedia. Can you please show me on en.wp an article about the Vice-Mayor of any other city from the world? (Iaaasi (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• • WP:WAX is not a valid argument, particularly if you refer to articles from ro.wiki, which is rife with promotional material.
  • My Google searches of Romanian papers actually give 4, 8 and 199 hits (not 4340, 1170 and 8190), but regardless, see WP:GHITS for why that's not really relevant. The totality of those results seem more than trivial in nature. To take the four EVZ results for instance, one tells us that Boros and several colleagues misused city funds; one lists him as losing an election, one mentions he gave an order to fill in a hole, and one again is a candidate list. I'm afraid none of these is particularly useful in writing an article. The Hungarian-language sources appear of a similarly insubstantial nature, though you may correct me on that point.
  • In short, you'll want to present reliable, in-depth sources attesting substantive notability, not random bits of news coverage (remember, we are WP:NOTNEWS), if you want this article kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion seems to have been canvassed on the Meta-Wiki talk pages of at least three Hungarian users.[3][4][5] Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The canvasser is User:Hangakiran, the only editor who opposed the deletion. He put also messages on en.wiki asking for help: [6][7][8][9] (so a total of 7 canvassed users) (Iaaasi (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

• Comment@User:Iaaasi When Iaaasi nominated the article for under WP:Afd, no notification was sent to us User:Hangakiran. So the outcome was the article was deleted. Another reason for the intimations was to request Hungarian users who are interested about what happens to pages of their leaders and to avoid the discussion becoming one sided with contributions only from Romanian Wiki users. Hangakiran (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Commment You should understand that what you've done (choosing invited users after a clear criteria like Hungarian ethnicity) is WP:Votestacking and it is illegal. You did not send neutral invitations, but requests "for help" in your attempt to prevent the deletion of this article. However this is not a vote (WP:VOTE) where the majority wins, but a "battle" of arguments (Iaaasi (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
• It's a bit of a stretch to call a former vice-mayor of a Romanian city a "leader" of Hungarians anywhere. Also, will you kindly stop viewing everything through the prism of ethnicity? This is not a numbers game between "Hungarian users" and "Romanian Wiki users". It's an attempt to remove an article on a non-notable figure who fails to meet applicable standards (WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, etc). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Further canvassing alert: User:Hangakiran set up an account on hu.wiki exclusively for canvassing "keep" votes for this article; see here, here, here, here and here. He has now canvassed 12 users on three projects. This is getting out of hand, and really threatens the integrity of the discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• @ Biruitorul, please can you give reference to the page created by me? I don't recall creating a page to exclusively canvass on hu.wiki. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a lie. You know very well what you've done (Iaaasi (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

• @ Iaaasi. Can you elaborate on what is the lie you refer to?

I am sorry, I owe you excuses, I thought you were saying that the account from hu.wp is not yours (Iaaasi (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Request for more information: Can someone list the applicable standards under which the politician does not qualify? This nomination makes a blanket statement regarding qualifications with no supporting details; just leaves it up to everyone else to figure it out for themselves with their own interpretation of the criteria. That makes me uncomfortable when we are talking about deleting content. This politician doesn't seem to be one of those "common sense" deletions. There's quite a bit of information in the article. In the first nomination, I had written about what I thought was a meeting of criteria. No one responded. I would like to understand from the nominator what their interpretation is and how they see that the criteria is not being met. Thank you. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Note: User:Sborsody joined this discussion as a result of Hangakiran's canvassing (Iaaasi (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)) Further note This is allowed under WP:CANVASS as I participated in a previous discussion on the same topic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment BTW, I'm not really Hungarian, just married to one and have ancestors from that empire who were minorities, as should be clear from my user page. I thought I was solicited for input because I commented on the previous nomination.[10] While I don't agree with the canvassing based on ethnicity, I also don't agree with not taking the good-faith effort of reaching out to the major contributors of the article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I may try to answer your question by looking at WP:POLITICIAN:
  • Boros has not held international, national or sub-national office, or been in the national legislature, so he fails point 1.
  • As for point 2: well, we know he wasn't mayor. We're told he was on the city council, but we have no source to back this up, and anyway, my reading is that in general, only city councillors of "a major metropolitan city" (of which Romania has but one, Bucharest) tend to be notable. Was he a "major local political figure"? Probably not: power in Cluj-Napoca city government is concentrated in the mayor and to a lesser extent the council, with the unelected vice-mayors serving more of an administrative role.
  • Finally, has he "received significant press coverage"? I tend to think he hasn't. Let's look just at the footnotes. I can't read Hungarian, but the two sources in that language seem to make only passing mention of him. Of the ones in Romanian, one is a quote in a news brief, one is a declaration about an obscure corruption scandal, one mentions his opinion on some highway project, one is a quote about housing, one looks at his allegedly corrupt deals, one is a quote about a city contract for a plot of land, one mentions him strictly in passing, one is a dead link, one is a news brief about a lawsuit filed against him by aggrieved tenants in two buildings, one mentions he ordered a hole to be filled, and one is an opinion piece that doesn't mention him. The one source in English is a news article that doesn't mention him. Oh, and almost all of these are in local rather than national newspapers. Can we say no one cares?
  • Some of the claims, by the way, tend to be overblown to the point of having nothing to do with the source. Take for instance this passage: "Though during the years of the Boc administration he no longer had to face constant ethnic provocations, his tenure was not fully void of ethnic disputes, either. Being the vice mayor he was tested time and again in his ability to reconcile disputes between the majority Romanian governance and the expectations of the minority Hungarians he represented". The source makes no such claim. "One such conflict was regarding restoration of the statue of Matthias Corvinus. The ex-mayor Gheorghe Funar was the one who started the controversy by changing the label of the statue of Matthias Corvinus from 'Matthias Rex Hungarorum' (Matthias King of Hungarians) to just 'Matthias Rex'." Again, nowhere does the article say this. "Being supported by the liberal Emil Boc, Janos Boros was able to diplomatically reconcile differences between the governments of Hungary and Romania, who together decided to finance the restoration of the historical statue group (of Matthias King) from the centre of Cluj-Napoca." The source (an opinion piece, by the way, which can't be used to support anything) makes absolutely no mention of Boros. So you see, not only is the sourcing trivial, it's been manipulated so as to endow Boros with an exaggerated importance.
  • As was brought up earlier, we don't really have articles on deputy mayors. OK, we do for London, as well as having a couple for New York, but one can't really compare Cluj-Napoca to those cities, can one?
  • Personally, I've written articles on five ethnic Hungarian politicians from Romania (László Borbély, Attila Cseke, Attila Verestóy, Iuliu Winkler, Péter Eckstein-Kovács), so it's not like the topic doesn't interest me. It's just that I tend to know a notable UDMR politician when I see one, and, for better or worse, Boros just isn't one of them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest Merge/Weak Delete: Thank you, Biruitorul, for taking the time to write more about the criteria and address the concerns I raised during the first nomination for deletion. I learned from you that vice-mayors are non-elected administrative roles (really?) and that to me somewhat lessens the importance. The "significance" criteria always seem to be a sticking point on these AfDs because everyone has their own ideas of what is significant. What is really telling to me is the total lack of links in Wikipedia to the Janos Boros article.[11] I guess I'm still concerned about a story here regarding events in Cluj-Napoca politics that may be lost by outright deletion of the article. The sources seem to suggest Janos Boros is a supporting character in that story, which indicates to me that it may be possible to preserve the story under other, more appropriate articles such as the article on Gheorghe Funar or Emil Boc. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • During 2004-2008, one of the main developments in Cluj-Napoca politics was the defusing of ethnic tensions built up by Mayor Funar. Indeed, by the end, the latter had managed to alienate pretty much everyone, Romanian and Hungarian alike, with his combative style, so that after a year in office, the technocratic Boc believed his main achievement was to bring about a "climate of normality" in city politics, whereas his populist predecessor had tended to file lawsuits against most decisions of the local council, the county council and the prefecture. No doubt, part of that process was in having a Hungarian for one of his deputies, in removing the Romanian flags one saw on every street corner, etc. If sources make the link, no doubt this can be mentioned at Emil Boc or even History of Cluj-Napoca.
  • But based on what I said above about the sources here being manipulated, I would caution against using any of this text in other articles. Let me give another example, if I may. We have this passage: "The issue of the statue has been a barometer to the sensitivity of the multi-ethnic groups cohabiting in Cluj-Napoca. It is wishful to think that this shared restoration brings a final resolution to Cluj-Napoca's ethnic conflicts, though efforts of leaders like Janos Boros and Emil Boc have eased tensions and have been successful in curtailing the nationalists from both Hungarian and Romanian sides to a great extent." The only problem is, it's completely unsourced, and was probably concocted by the author. Once we have an article on the statue (and we should), some of this should definitely be mentioned, but from a reliable source like this one, not the editorializing of a Wikipedia editor. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• just a few comments: I don't see what is the problem with notifying other editors about this AfD. English Wikipedia is too big for us to keep an eye on all Hungary-related articles, especially that there are only a few Hungarian editors here (also, most of us are used to the much smaller Hungarian wikipedia where it's relatively easy to watch all AfD pages). Hangakiran couldn't even be sure that we'll vote for the article to be kept. I think if the majority of the sources regarding a subject's notability are in a certain language, it is necessary to notify users who can understand that language (and I've seen enwiki sysops doing this.
• Also, I don't see how Cluj is not a "major metropolitan city", it is stated that it's the fourth largest in Romania, with a population of about 400,000; seems to be significant even by European standards.
• Boros has over 37,000 google hits in Hungarian, mostly about monument protection, local events, and losing an election. I'm not sure it makes him notable, though. – Alensha ^talk 21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose everyone will have a different definition of "major metropolitan city", but how about using the list of Largest urban areas of the European Union? (Romania's next six largest cities are some six times smaller, correspondingly less powerful, and widely thought of as "provincial".) By that standard, Romania does indeed have just one, and I tend to think that's about right: members of the General Council of Bucharest maybe (as in, a few of them) are notable figures, but one simply doesn't see members of the Iaşi, Cluj, Timişoara, Constanţa, Craiova or Galaţi city councils exercising any sort of influence or having any kind of renown outside their own cities. Their mayors, yes, but not their city councillors.
  • I've never thought of Boros as being a nobody: he had a decent-enough career in politics and no doubt was well-liked by some voters and helped them out, while angering others (like the ones who sued him). But that's true for thousands of local politicians in mid-sized cities around the world, and it shouldn't necessarily follow that he gets a Wikipedia article. WP:POLITICIAN should be applied equally.
  • As for Google: well, from what you say, it sounds like Hungarian sources also mainly deal with his involvement in local issues and making the local news. Perhaps some of that has its place at, say, Matthias Corvinus Statue, Cluj-Napoca, but I doubt it rises to a particularly noteworthy standard, though feel free to correct me. By the way, we get lots of hits for (just to take an example) today's UDMR Cluj city councillors (Irsay, Somogyi, Csoma, Molnos and László). Of these, Molnos may be notable primarily as a writer and László is just possibly notable as a politician, but I wouldn't say the same of the first three, or of most of the other 22 members of the council. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - In my opinion the sources points to notability. I see no reason to delete this article right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete While I think this person passes WP:GNG it is a borderline case. As I said I see some issues with the article, which could not be resolved at this time per comments above. I would have no problem with the article being recreated at a later time as a stub by an established editor, should someone change their mind or become interested. However this recreating user writing the stub, should be someone with interests in a few other topics as well, not just this single article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Janos Boros Has been the President of the State of Cluj of the RMDSZ(UDMR In Romanian) - The Largest Hungarian Party in Romania for 2 Years and Vice-presidentship for 4 Years. Put together he has been the head of RMDSZ's Cluj City party head for nearly 6 years. In addition has been the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca for 8 Years. Another important aspect about his Vice-Mayorship is that he was the first Hungarian to enter Cluj-Napoca city governance as Viec Mayor after the fall of communism - a notable event for Hungarians, while Romanians might well predictably find it insignificant. This should qualify him easily under WP:Politician

He was:

- From 1993 to 97 Vice-president Cluj County of UDMR

- From 1997 to 99 President of Cluj County UDMR

- From 2000 onwards he was the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca for 2 successive terms

References:

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7okt-23.htm (under Máshol elképzelhetetlen)

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7nov-28.htm (Under Diplomats visit Körösfôn )

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7jul-28.htm#E13E4

These are but a sample of the links that can be found in the Hungarian press about Janos Boros. If one does site :searches as I have in the links in my previous posts, and does get a proper Hungarian Translation, would find news :coverage of significance unlike in the Romanian press( which is an admixture of very little good, some neutral and :bad to a large extent for Janos Boros).

About Cluj not being of importance and Bucharest being the only city worth Reconing in Romania:

Cluj County has had a GDP 37% higher than the national average, with the only county having a GDP 3/4th that of :Bucharest [http://www.romania-central.com/economy-of-romania/the-economy-of-romania/33-development-regions

-of-romania/339-regional-disparities-in-romania/]. With investments in hundreds of millions of Euros by companies :like Nokia, most of the software from Romania coming form Cluj [http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet

/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206103523&queryText=cluj= According to American News Magazine InformationWeek], Multi-billion dollar corporations MOL, Genpact and many more having chosen Cluj over Bucharest. If this does not

qualify Cluj as a major center of power in Romania, what does? Cluj county and Cluj-Napoca its capital are quite :significant in Romania. The perspective where Cluj Napoca becomes more important than even Bucharest is from that

of a Hungarian. For a Hungarian from Transylvania, Cluj Napoca is where their their culture is rooted. It is the city :of their greatest king Mtyas. Was the capital years before occupation by Romanians. This is not something you find

reflected by any Romanian, or Romanian Media or political groups. So it is no surprise that for the Romanians there :is no city worth mentioning other than Bucharest, while Cluj Napoca or Kolozsvar(As called by Hungarians) is

onsidered precious by Hungarians.

Role of Vice Mayors:

The Role of Vice Mayors in Cluj-Napoca is administrative as much as that of the Mayor. They have a definite role - :for example the Hungarian Vice Mayor is responsible for focussing on the general welfare and upkeep of the city

while safeguarding and promoting acts and regulations that are favorable to their Hungarian Electorate. That is what :the Mayor does as well. So it is better not to twist facts than how they otherwise are. It seems that facts available

even on Wikipedia are being twisted around with claims that there are no articles of Vice Mayors other than for huge :cities like London. Here are a few:

- http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Jigme_Namgyal

- http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Morten_H%C3%B8glund

If one has the patience can dig up a whole list of them from cities far less in relevance than Cluj Napoca.

News about him being not relevant: It is possible to relegate any news about anyone as irrelevant by saying one :it was just a quote, it was about a scandal etc. Janos Boros has been in the news and Hungarian news which have

sought his opinion and his ongoing work as the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca, while the Romanian dallies dish either :insignificant news or news about his scandals. Take for example the news about the restitution of the Roman Catholic

Church Property was portrayed only in the negative in connection with Janos Boros. While Szabadsag, gives account of :the Hungarian perspective (Reference: [http://www.szabadsag.ro/szabadsag/servlet/szabadsag/template/

article,PMainArticleScreen.vm/id/1996;jsessionid=360D04D9E99CDDFEC0F47835482AB4CC] ). Incase further proof of the :search results from the Hungarian news dailies being note worthy or not, please use a proper Hungarian-

English translation service and you will see that the news is not only notable but also quite different and positive :towards Janos Boros.

Regarding dispute over some of the sources in the Article:

- "Though during the years of the Boc administration he no longer had to face constant ethnic provocations, his :tenure was not fully void of ethnic disputes, either. Being the vice mayor he was tested time and again in his :ability to reconcile disputes between the majority Romanian governance and the expectations of the minority :Hungarians he represented". The source makes no such claim." If the sources provided in the article are not :sufficient, please refer to this link here where it clearly mentions the existence of ethnic tension about the :removal of King Matyas's statue, between Hungarians and Romanians living in Cluj (http://www.hhrf.org/nepujsag/05okt/5nu1007t.htm ). As quoted by Janos Boros himself in an interview ( [12] ) mentions how difficult it was to be of Hungarian ethnicity with Funar and how he :evolved a peaceful co-working environment under Emil Boc.

Hangakiran (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Being president of a county party organization isn't in itself evidence of notability as a politician. It can be a contributing factor, but if we look for instance at the Social Democrats, of ~40 such presidents, just six (Constantin Niţă, Marian Oprişan, Viorel Hrebenciuc, Oana Niculescu-Mizil, Radu Ştefan Mazăre and Ilie Sârbu) jump out as being notable. A couple more may be, but the point is, it's not that meaningful a position, and all these PSD members are notable for reasons other than their leadership of county parties. (Five have served in Parliament; of these, two have been in Cabinet and one is a big-city mayor. Oprişan, the sixth, while never having held national office, has gained widespread notoriety for his activities, on a level far greater than Boros ever did.)
  • I did not say that Bucharest is "the only city worth Reconing in Romania", and that would be an absurd contention. I simply said that by a reasonable definition, it's Romania's only major metropolitan city, and thus this encyclopedia shouldn't tend to have articles on its local officials (other than mayors), unless they've gained press mention that immediately and obviously attests their notability — which would be a stretch in Boros' case.
  • Our having an article on the vice-mayor of Lhasa probably falls under WP:WAX. Morten Høglund, of course, sits in the Norwegian Parliament, and that's his primary claim to notability.
  • "It is possible to relegate any news about anyone as irrelevant" - well, yes, but it's also possible to make claims of relevance where there's little of that. For instance, yes, Boros has commented on the restitution of a church. But is the church itself notable? If so, once we write an article on the church, I'm sure we can devote a few lines to his comments. But the comments wouldn't necessarily have a place in a biography of his. And yes, the current "sources" for the article are, by and large, on the trivial side. Issuing comments on local matters here and there, passing mentions now and then, are standard in the local press for local officials, but they don't really indicate encyclopedic notability. They happen routinely for thousands of local officials around the world, and usually remain unnoticed by us.
  • I know there's been tension about the statue since about 1920. There's a great place we can cover the entire debate: Matthias Corvinus Statue, Cluj-Napoca. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment/Still Suggest Merge: In the first nomination, I felt that being a vice-mayor of Cluj-Napoca was significant as it is the third largest city of Romania so still the decision isn't so clear. Again, a big problem to me remains the fact that Janos Boros is an orphaned article. I suggested merging with another article. UDMR (note that Cluj-Napoca is an important center of this political party) could be another candidate article. Boros isn't even mentioned in it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment - by the way, I'd like to debunk a meme that the article creator has repeatedly stated, which runs to the effect that Boros hasn't received much mention in the Romanian-language press because he's an ethnic Hungarian and gets ignored for that reason. Let's approach this claim in two ways:
  • First, let's look at an ethnic Romanian deputy mayor. How about Romeo Olteanu, deputy mayor of Iaşi, the country's second-largest city? He gets thousands of mentions in local papers, but low double digits or even single digits in the main national newspapers. A situation analogous to that of Boros - by this measure at least, neither man seems to be notable.
  • Second, let's pick a relatively obscure ethnic Hungarian mayor: how about Antal Árpád, who heads the rather small city of Sfântu Gheorghe? The same national papers give him many hundreds of mentions, and Antal is likely notable. (I should add, more for his provocative statements and strident stance on Székely autonomy, than simply for the fact that he's a mayor.)
  • So you see, deputy mayors do tend to be ignored by the national press, regardless of ethnicity, and notable local officials do receive its attention, again regardless of ethnicity. Given the paucity of national press mention for Boros, and the generally trivial mentions he received in the local press, I think that's further evidence of his failing to meet the notability standards. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• The whole discussion is missing the main point, which is "Yes" Janos Boros might not have been a prominent name in National news except for a casual mention once in a while. This is so because the National news is saturated with news of Romanian Politicians. Take for example the case of "Romeo Olteanu". He has been the Vice-Mayor of Iasi only since mid 2008 and a site search of Adevarul = Search result for Romeo Olteanu in a popular Romanian National news daily reveals humungous amount of news referring to him and his actions. This is for a person who has held the Vice Mayors office for just 1.5 years. Do the same for Janos Boros who had the same position for 8 years in a row and Adevarul gives just a one page Search result for Janos :Boros in a popular Romanian National news daily result where only a couple of news links are directly related to him.

This is just one example of bias in the media.

About Biruitorul question if the Roman Catholic Church is itself Notable indicates his bias towards minority institutions. Why, because it is has the second largest denomination after the Romanian Orthodox Church with majority of its followers being Hungarian. By the way Roman Catholic Church is notable and does have an article on Wiki = http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Roman_Catholicism_in_Romania . I also cannot help but notice the way Biruitorul refers to the Roman Catholic Church as just "The church".

Hungarians account for under 6 percent of the population and their political party RMDSZ hardly garner as much of the votes. The competition for leadership is intense in such a small political party is intense and in cities with majority Romanian population, it is almost impossible for a minority leader to become the Mayor. Holding 8 years in a row across 2 terms is itself a sign of Janos Boros popularity among the Hungarians.

To sum it up the right way to look at leaders of Minority like Janos Boros is through the lens of the Minority, The Minority media. As I said earlier if one reads the news coverage for Janos Boros in the Hungarian press coverage it is significant and voluminous. These are the news dailies popular across the much of North-West and parts of Central region housing the much of the Hungarian population in Romania. Hungarians in Romania know who is Janos Boros, while :someone in say Sfantu Gheorghe might not know who Romeo Olteanu is. This is debate seriously should be about protecting an article of a leader from a minority group who definitely is popular among that minority and not if he has National relevance, let alone that being positive. Wikipedia and its rules cannot ignore the environment in which minority leaders survive. The right way is to look at their achievements through the eyes of the minorities themselves

Hangakiran (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is moving way beyond ridiculous. Hangakiran, you spare no effort in canvassing for this article, and no strenuous rationale for defending it against wikipedia content guidelines, and you even kicked this whole thread back into existence on the claim that we are all against Boros because it is Hungarian (this being a frivolous and insulting piece of personal propaganda). Never mind that the intense promotion and calumny should have prevented experienced admins from even bothering with this project of yours, but surely you must be aware that the amphibology between "a church" (the building) and "the Church" (the Catholic institution), which you use to misrepresent Biruitorul's argument, is indecent. Unless you're trying to suggest that Boros has rescued the Catholic hierarchy or faith in Romania - if you plan to, at least let me get my popcorn first.

To everyone else: this is not a nationality issue; there is absolutely nothing about Boros' case that would make it relevant whether he is a victim of anti-Hungarian sentiment. Hangakiran's core argument, so often seen in AfD's, is the simple sophistry: "If you're against my biographical article, you're against [insert people, religion, class, clan, profession]." I couldn't tell you how many times I have seen this line of thinking surfacing among Romanian users, so very often nationalist Romanian users, who did not understand what wikipedia is about. And, quite clearly, Boros is by no means and under no definition a "leader" of a minority group - he is simply a bureaucrat who took over an office which is assigned by default, according to party politics and election scores. No community will be "harmed" by him not having a bio on wikipedia, no romantic tears will be shed.

The substance of this vote refers to the notability of a person, any person, in his position. Whether we are wrong or not, me and Biruitorul have stated that the basic criterion is not met - and Biruitorul has patently and convincingly shown how sources were manipulated to write what is basically a promotional CV from someone who has so intensely campaigned for this article. Our objectivity in handling this topic is noted even by those who disagree with our position: a user above has payed us an undeserved compliment, noting that, "Without a doubt there are some legitimate concerns with this article, such as tone and it's creator's list of contributions making a description of 'most likely promotional' accurate. However these problems can sometime be fixed by rewriting by someone else. I think the ideal solution here would be a stub written by someone like Dahn or Biruitorul."

Enough said. Dahn (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think I did interpret Biruitorul correctly. He presents the news in the source as "Boros has commented on the restitution of a church. But is the church itself notable?". The core of the matter was about restitution of property belonging to "The" Roman Catholic Church in Romania, The Institution - NOT "a" Church. If amphiboly has occurred, it must surely have been in the way Biruitorul presented the news in the source.

Is ethnicity important in this discussion? Yes! Here is why: All Romanian contributors demanding widespread recognition pan-Romania for Janos Boros to prove Notability is absurd. Why? Please read how Janos Boros with a 8 year tenure as Vice Mayor compares with Romeo Olteanu in one of Major Romanian News Dailies. Romeo Olteanu get voluminous results while Janos Boros get just a page. That is why I am saying that this discussion should be whether Janos Boros is Notable and Popular among the Ethnicity which he represents? Yes, he is. Is this accusing anyone of being Nationalistic, No! This is the truth, however harsh.

Inspite of me giving sources from Major Hungarian news dailies with tons of quality references you continue to claim that his Notability is of question. This attitude infact proves my point above.

It is not my intention to sound or be Nationalistic in my approach in this discussion. The truth remains that the Hungarians rights and any news about them is misrepresented by Romanian News dailies. Take the example of Adevarul the leading news Daily in Romanian trying to portray schools run by Hungarians to help their children learn in their mother tounge as illegal and bad and promoting anti-hungarian sentiments and accusing RMDSZ of being racially intolerant. What was their fault, the Hungarians and the RMDSZ wanted their children to study in their language. Click here for the article: [13].

I can give you plenty of such reports from the Hungarian Media when they feel they have misrepresented by the Romanian National Media. In essence my point is not to sound "Nationalistic" and accuse you of being one. My focus is to point out the ground reality which this discussion should factor in - "It is better to judge a leader representing a Ethnic :Minority by that Minorities Media arms and by its people".

I wish to sum my point of view here for one last time(Hopefully). Articles of leaders like Janos Boros who are popular among their Ethnic minority group to this day, will find much unfavorable mention in the media dominated by the major ethnicity and hardly any mention after their tenures. So to determine if such a person is notable or not entirely based on National Media will take the focus away from the person's notability among his people. This view is not meant to sound Nationalistic like Dahn claims, but infact is reflected and felt widespread among Hungarians. For them their regional news media entities like Szabadsag are the ones which bring balanced views about things Hungarian and related to their leaders.

Hangakiran (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Repeating the term "minority", incantation-like, won't add to his claim of notability. The rest of your post is largely inconsequential, except I will note that Romeo Olteanu gets 47 hits in Adevărul and Janos Boros 9, so very much on the same scale, and very much showing the general lack of importance the Romanian press accords to deputy mayors, minority or not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep Seems to meet GNG based on the sources shown. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, and Note: this is an interesting discussion above. One pro-delete editor is already blocked; other one seems to be busy stalking pro-keep editors and tracking whether they "canvass" anyone in any Wikimedia projects whatsoever... I'm not really sure this all goes objectively. As well as I'd like to note that the prejudgement that the invited editors cannot think for themselves is borderline offensive. (Inviting people to follow a debate they aren't aware of isn't a sin in my opinion, and it's unrealistic to act like it was.) My experience usually shows that most Hungarian and most Romanian editors can live just happily together but from time to time a few ones start nationality-heated debates about basically nothing. I'm not through the whole discussion, but I remember it from the last time, where it's been cited that the guy have references in Hungarian language (at least, and a few mentions elsewhere), which pretty much justified keeping it. What I don't really see why do some fellow editors actually fight for deleting it? Third time, too? Because he's a Hungarian nationality Romanian politician? Because the references are in ("evil") Hungarian? Because he didn't (shouldn't?) earned the right(?) to be published more in the Romanian media? We actually burn ten times more bits debating this whole shebang than by keeping the article and let it rest. I'm actually fine with having two dozen meaningful Romanian politicians around, if anyone cares. (Of course I already could live without more than one Hungarian ones, either.) --grin ✎ 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy-based reasons for keeping, rather than ones casting aspersions, would be much appreciated. Yes, WP:CANVASS is policy, yes, sending out a dozen invitations to users one thinks will share an opinion, even ostensibly "neutral" invitations, is against that policy, and no, checking up on a proven canvassing user's contributions at other projects is not "stalking". No convincing evidence of notability has been presented in any language, and no, no one has said or implied the article should be deleted because Boros is Hungarian or because the "references" (trivial as they are) are in Hungarian, so you can stop with that line of argument right there. Yes, his lack of coverage in the Romanian-language press, considering he was active in the capital of Transylvania, and that that same press routinely provides ample coverage on plenty of ethnic Hungarian politicians (and note that I deliberately chose "second-tier" ones for those searches), is a strong indicator that notability is lacking. That, and the similarly mundane mentions he received in the Hungarian-language press. So please, if you do participate here, try to show how and why he meets WP:POLITICIAN, and steer clear of muddying the waters with talk of ethnic-based voting. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding canvassing, I posted request for participation in good faith. The administrator has asked me not to any more, I have agreed. So there ends the discussion about it. The focus of this discussion should not be on the article now and not in else.

Biruitorul Janos Boros has ample coverage in Hungarian media starting right from 1999 up until now. :And I have presented them in my previous posts. It is easy to just say there was none even after one presents the evidence. That is not nice. A person who is not notable cannot be in the news for such a long time. He has also been the President of RMDSZ for the State of Cluj. If these do not qualify him for WP:POLITICIAN, what will? I have heard your argument before, it is about the Romanian media, national level etc. I reiterate what i said in my previous posts, Janos Boros needs to be judged not by his notability according to Romanian Media but by that in Hungarian Media and the Hungarian people. It seems you either did not read through my posts properly or refuse to acknowledge, so I am posting a few links more for your perusal as to why Janos Boros is relevant for the Hungarians. Hope you read it this time around

- 1997 from the Archives of Szabadsag, the Hungarian news daily quotes him as Chairman of RMDSZ of the state of Cluj :with the Japanese Consul. This is the post he has held for 4 Years before becoming the Vice Mayor till mid 2000

:http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7nov-28.htm

- A 2000 Entry which cites him in the role of Public Administrator of DAHR(The English acronym for RMDSZ party)

: http://www.hhrf.org/monitor/002rom.htm

- 12th Jan 2001 Gives a citation of how Gheorghe Funar, the Romanian Mayor, opposes Janos Boros who is by then the Vice :Mayor in setting up a Office for Minorities in the Mayor's office. He held this office for two consecutive terms, that :is for 8 years till 2009.

: http://www.hhrf.org/monitor/101rom.htm

These are to one prove that he does pass WP:Politician. All the links I have posted in previous posts will prove his notability. It would be appreciated if the Romanian editors vying to have this article deleted not come back with misleading statements like "He doesn't even find mention here or there OR The mentions are not noteworthy". All sources cited by my in the discussion of this article have links which are relevant and notable. In case you need more, I will more than happy to be of help with translations for as many number of news articles in the Hungarian Media you deem fit to ask.

Janos Boros person who has been the head of the State Unit for the largest political representing minorities in Romania :for 4 years and then 8 years as the Vice Mayor of the Capital of that state. This he was because of the popularity among :his people the Hungarians. That is how his stature should be seen. They way this discussion has developed is demeaning :to him as a person and the service rendered by him to his community.

So I ask Janos Boros to be seen through the lens of the Hungarian Media and its People.

Hangakiran (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • To begin with, it's Cluj County. There is no such thing as a "state" on the sub-national level in Romania.
  • In response to your question about the notability of his being county party chairman, let me repeat myself: "Being president of a county party organization isn't in itself evidence of notability as a politician. It can be a contributing factor, but if we look for instance at the Social Democrats, of ~40 such presidents, just six (Constantin Niţă, Marian Oprişan, Viorel Hrebenciuc, Oana Niculescu-Mizil, Radu Ştefan Mazăre and Ilie Sârbu) jump out as being notable. A couple more may be, but the point is, it's not that meaningful a position, and all these PSD members are notable for reasons other than their leadership of county parties. (Five have served in Parliament; of these, two have been in Cabinet and one is a big-city mayor. Oprişan, the sixth, while never having held national office, has gained widespread notoriety for his activities, on a level far greater than Boros ever did.)"
  • Let me also repeat another theme you seem to be missing: in Romania, ethnic Hungarian politicians who are genuinely notable will receive ample coverage in the national press; I've shown this over and over. Especially as we're talking about someone active in a city that's 80% Romanian.
  • I'm sorry, but your "sources" continue to be in the same WP:NOTNEWS vein of routine mentions, and don't satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Yes, he was a local official mentioned now and then in the local press, but so are tens of thousands of others worldwide. That doesn't mean he met the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no comparison of County presidents of PSD with County President of RMDSZ because RMDSZ is the only party representing the Hungarians(If we ignore the couple of minuscule ones trying popout the last couple of years). On the Other hand Romanians have 3 major parties and many more medium sized minor ones. The loyalties are divided. So it is not easy said in case of PSD leaders that their leadership was representative of the favour of all Romanians. That CAN be said about Janos Boros about the loyalty of HUngarians voters to him, as he represents the ONLY party which represents the Hungarian minority in Romania. So him being elected Cluj County Head for 4 years in a row clearly qualifies him as [WP:Politican], not because I say so, but by Point 1 under the guidelines. While any of the people whom you mention, even if they were to lead their parties for the same tenure would not mean they are representative of all Romanians as Janos Boros was to Hungarians.
  • Sorry, but your claims here are veering into the preposterous. So what if the UDMR is the main party representing the 6.6% of Romanians who are of Hungarian ethnicity? The PNL is (or claims to be) the only major party representing the 15% of Romanians who are economic liberals, while the PSD is the only major party representing the 35% of Romanians who are social democrats. Also, you can't quite call the PCM "minuscule"; it won over a third of the Szekely vote at the 2008 local elections. And of course, only 8.5% of Hungarians in Romania actually live in Cluj County, so even if we stretch things a little and call him their "leader" (an odd notion, since Romania is not a party-state, and people do tend to live their daily lives quite without reference to political "leaders"), he was no leader to the other 91.5%. I'd accept the notion that László Tőkés and Béla Markó are/were "leaders" of Romania's Hungarians; perhaps also someone like György Frunda; but I think no one has ever made the claim for Boros before this discussion.
  • Do consult for a moment the list of UDMR county party heads. Of these, Iuliu Winkler and Attila Verestoy (whose biographies here, incidentally, were written by me) are notable; so is Attila Kelemen — but, at least at first brush, none of the others are. And no, the ethnic-based status of their party doesn't confer automatic notability on them, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources are news worthy. You are doing exactly what I said in my last post: Just ignore the posts, not raise specifics, but make random generalizations like they are not even news, they are vague and so on. So for your benefit let me give you summaries for a few links here below. As I said, if you need more, please don't hesitate to ask, I can keep giving summaries for as many news worthy links for you as you want.

Link 1: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7aug-07.htm#E13E4

States that in 1997 Janos Boros the President of RMDSZ, CLuj County, presenting before an Administrative Board the proposal of the Hungarians to allow them to have Namebaords of legal establishments in Hungarian and Romanian. Janos Boros Goes on to explain the difficulties the Romanian authorities are posing to stop its implementation.

Link 2: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/main.php?datum=20060111

A 2006 news quote Janos Boros assuring Hungarian Farmers who lost their lands during communism, that as the Chairman of Committee for Land Reforms in Cluj Municipality and as the Vice Mayor, the steps he was going to take to speed up the processes that were required from the city hall.

Link 3: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/main.php?datum=20060324

In this link of 2006 Janos Boros explains the steps he has taken to fast track the process of restoration of King Matyas's Statue, which the Hungarians considers as their greatest king. He also goes onto quote how the process was held hostage by Gheorghe Funar the Nationailistic Romanian Mayor of Cluj earlier.

Link 4: http://maszol.ro/tarsadalom/97508

In the 2009 link Janos Boros describes what he feels about the manace of beggars on the streets of Cluj Napoca and how he plans to put a stop to this habit of begging.

If this is not enough, just let me know how many of what type you need, will give the links.

Hangakiran (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • You may want to keep familiarizing yourself with the news vs. encyclopedic content dichotomy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• The links were not meant for the inclusion in the Article of Janos Boros, but as a sample of the coverage he has received since his tenure at the head of RMDSZ started in 1997. The quality and content are similar to any politician who has been a Mayor or Vice Mayor of Cluj. This was in support of his notability. Furthermore Notability is a guideline not a policy under Wikipedia rules for Biographies. Given the fact that Janos Boros was the President of RMDSZ since 1997 to 2000 and the First Hungarian to Occupy the Vice Mayors Chair in Cluj Napoca after the end of communism and held the tenure for 8 consequtive years qualifies him under WP:Politician. Hangakiran (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As you (hopefully) know, Boros was not President of the UDMR from 1997 to 2000; Béla Markó held that position from 1993 to 2011; Boros was merely head of one of its 29 branches, which on no account renders him notable. As for the vice mayor position: so? He is simply a bureaucrat who took over an office which is assigned by default, according to party politics and election scores. Seriously, did anyone devote any special attention to that fact? And did you pay attention to the fact that a mere handful of deputy mayors (of the thousands worldwide) are noticed by Wikipedia, or that no deputy mayor, of whatever ethnicity, ever really gets covered in the Romanian press, which does (your baseless claims notwithstanding) devote ample coverage to ethnic Hungarian politicians who actually do have valid claims of notability? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: A vice-mayor of a city of 400,000? We don't likely have many articles like that here. This discussion seems like horrible mess at this point. (note, i don't believe any regular ARS member tagged this for rescue.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Biruitorul This is the second time you are trying to misinterpret and misrepresent what I said. Clearly if you look at all my posts, I clearly said, Janos Boros was the President of RMDSZ for Cluj County. Second he is NOT simply a bureaucrat who took over office as you depict it to be, the process which you seemingly seem to be unaware of is that he got elected through voting in the Cluj Napoca Council election. Third let us look at the Rome Olteanu the Vice Mayor to Iasi, he has humungous number of mentions[14] in the National Media. Take the example of coverage by Adevarul about Romeo Olteanu: Yet he is just 1.5 years into his tenure. On the other hand for Janos Boros who has been the Vice Mayor for 8 years of another big city in Romania, Adevarul has just a page[15] to show. THIS is the bias I am trying to show that exists in the Romanian Media. If one wants to see Janos Boros's notability take a look at the coverage he got in Hungarian press. Even after someone presents facts about that Janos Boros was the President of the largest party for Minoroty for the County of Cluj for nearly 4 years, the held Vice Mayorship for 8 years, meaning that he was at the helm among the leaders RMDSZ party leadership for the County of Cluj for nearly 12 Years in a row. This by definition is indicative of the popularity among his people. This is no small feat.Also qualifies him under WP:Politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this short. 1) Look, Hangakiran, these pages are not forums, and your rebuttals can't go on forever. If you haven't made your point by now, you'll not be making it by flooding this discussion with your more or less accurate comments. 2) As was noted, president of a regional branch of the UDMR/RMDSZ doesn't count for much notability-wise, nor does it make Boros a "leader" of the party, let alone "leader of the Hungarian community". Let's adhere to a modicum of common sense. 3) Yes he is simiply a bureaucrat, since vice-mayoral offices in Romania, everywhere, go to the people nominated by the party after local election scores are in - you will find that they are mostly assigned to the nobodies of party politics, since they greatly hamper someone's chances of political advancement, being highly specialized and virtually invisible political offices. 4) You should really learn to restrict your google searches: a search for Romeo Olteanu gives you all the possible pages where "Romeo" and "Olteanu" (both of them common Romanian names) appear, in whatever order, however far apart. Try searching for "Romeo Olteanu", subtract the blog entries, forums, his Romanian wikipedia bio and other crap, and you end up with very little credible results - the few that still point to national media have been counted above, and they don't take up that much time to read through and note the triviality (WP:NOTNEWS). This is roughly similar to what Mr. Boros gets. Really now. Dahn (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Dahn, I think I have the right to post my rebuttals to all your posts. Interesting the way you put it, you seem to suggest I have no right to post my reply after you have made your point of view. This is not fair. Anyway, regarding your statements just made by you regarding the article:

• Point 2: That is YOUR point of view stated as a fact my friend. The head of a state unit of a political party does qualify under WP:Politician guidelines. That he was the Vice Mayor strengthens the case. And moreover at the county/state level these are two of the highest posts for a Hungarian politician. He was at the highest position a Hungarian can possibly be at, in the County level.

• Point 3: Vice Mayorship of for Hungarians is not given to push aside someone in Hungarian politics. It might happen in Romanian parties, if you say so. There I have no idea. But surely not in RMDSZ. So please don't make statements you cannot substantiate. And don't say "take my word for it".

• Interesting you are getting this vague results unlike what I see. Take a look at this search again: http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=war&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Romeo+Olteanu%22+site%3A+www.adevarul.ro&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= . I did search for "Romeo Olteanu" and clearly see most of the results do refer to him directly and his actions as the Vice Mayor.

I request you not make comments like "Yes he is simiply a bureaucrat, since vice-mayoral offices in Romania, everywhere, go to the people nominated by the party after local election scores are in - you will find that they are mostly assigned to the nobodies of party politics, since they greatly hamper someone's chances of political advancement, being highly specialized and virtually invisible political offices.". This is insinuating that Janos Boros is a nobody, is unsubstantiated and evidently trying to malign him and belittle his achievements. This is not to be done in this discussion. Kindly stick to statements you can prove with sources, not "your words".

Hangakiran (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you, you're obviously set in your campaign to keep this misleading article and the rationale supporting it. To clarify, this is my third post on this page, so you were not in fact replying to me. Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry. As for me answering all your claims, including about how Vice-Mayors are "somebodies" including in provincial cities, or how Boros' office is notable in itself, or how google hits prove "bias" against Boros and for Olteanu, let me just end my interventions here with this note, that I was otherwise going to add to an earlier post: This is roughly similar to what Mr. Boros gets. And don't take my word for it: check out what a regional newspaper has to say about none other than Mr. Olteanu: "Viceprimarul Romeo Olteanu, un anonim pentru ieseni. Iesenii nu stiu cine este si ce activitate desfasoara viceprimarul Romeo Olteanu. Un sondaj realizat in perioada ianuarie - martie 2010 pe un esantion de 1474 de persoane arata ca 63% dintre subiecti nu au cunostinta despre cine este si ce face acest edil." ("Vice-Mayor Radu Olteanu, an anonymous man as far as the people of Iaşi care. The people of Iaşi have no clue who Vice-Mayor Romeo Olteanu is and what his field of activity is supposed to cover. A poll carried out in January-March 2010 among 1,474 people shows that 63% of those interviewed have no clue about who this official is and what he supposedly does.") Tolle, lege. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop using words like "bickering" and "manipulating info with sophistry". I am set in nothing but to defend as rationally as possible, yes. I have a right to answer to posts which I find unfair. A poll showing Romeo Olteanu as not known to people in Iasi does not mean the same applies to Janos Boros. You logic seems to run like A is a fruit, B is a Fruit and if A is rotten as a consequence so is B. This is logical fallacy. Hangakiran (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my logic is: rotten or not, both A and B are fruits. Since you claimed that the Romanian fruit is more exposed, let's note that the allegedly more exposed fruit is still anonymous among his fellow Iaşi folk! Dahn (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• My claim was that Romeo Olteanu who has held office fo rjust 1.5 years, irrespective of whether he is popular among his people or not, gets more mileage than Janos Boros who has been at the helm of Hungarian Politics in Cluj County for nearly 12 years on the Adevarul. This was to show how skewed news reportage in Romanian media is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's why your claim is special pleading. Dahn (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

*Your claiming so does not make it one. You have to explain why? Hangakiran (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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.