Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imrich Barta

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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imrich Barta[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag [1], removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs ([2], [3]), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP [4], where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability [5], [6]. In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content [7], [8], [9]. Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags [10] [11], [12]. All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand you... you have many sources there, just because you dont understand the language you want to delete entire page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.10.38 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:

Refs ##1,2,4 [13] are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
Refs ##3,6 [14] are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" [15], though he was not alone in that [16] according to the source.
Ref #5 [17] is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
in Ref #7 [18] the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.

These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that claiming an editor went to the trouble of translating the English Wiki article into Slovenian in order to boost notability is a bit of a stretch.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted [19] after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP [20] (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica [21]. In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He [had] created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculous. Imrich Barta was not a famous painter, and did not bring many Americans to visit Bratislava to see works "in the style of Van Gogh". Americans who want to see van Goghs go to the Van Gogh Museum or the Kröller-Müller Museum, not to Bratislava to visit the non-existent Imrich Barta Museum or any of the fine museums of Bratislava, none of who appear to gave an Imrich Barta in their collections. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He seems to have some reliable source coverage as an architect, although none at all as a painter. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Chalk19's additional sleuthing. A person who fails WP:NPERSON, an architect who fails WP:ARCHITECT, and a painter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Trifecta! -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (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.