Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Győry

:{{la|Involuntary committal of Victor Győry}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Victor Győry}})

The article is a negative, mostly unsourced BLP, which has to be addressed somehow. However, that is not the primary reason I am nominating it for deletion.

I'm not convinced that this article meets the relative inclusion guidelines. My Prod concurrence was removed by Cyclopia. I have done a fair amount of digging, and these are the sources I found:

• Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Wednesday, July 23, 1969 – Page 9 - ~3/4 column
• Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Tuesday, January 06, 1970 – Page 13 - ~1 column
• Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph – Colorado Springs, Colorado – Friday, July 05, 1974 – Page 17 - 1/3 column
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=JTKMvj27w5gC&pg=PA129 Christian perspectives on psychology], edited by Richard Ruble - 2 paragraphs
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=lPhL9CmSjPYC&pg=PA98 Mental Illness], by Marie L. Thompson - 1 paragraph
• Couple of 1-2 sentence mentions elsewhere.
• And of course, a Church of Scientology publication and Church of Scientology press releases, which I hardly think are reliable sources.

Together, I don't believe that is enough to have a full article on them. What do you all think? NW (Talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This was fast, NW!. The article meets WP:GNG; even by applying strict BLP standards we have detailed, consistent coverage in two apparently reliable books and in several news. I agree with the nominator that CoS sources are not reliable, but other sources undoubtedly are. The claim that it is "mostly unsourced" is now false (I have now copied the sources that NW reports as well here); I am going to put them inline now. --Cyclopia^talk 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform, per the merge performed by Jayen466. As long as the information about the case is preserved, merging in a larger article is a sound editorial decision. --Cyclopia^talk 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It really comes down to whether this unreferenced assertion "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" is sustainable. If it is, it is a clear keeper. If not, it is a Scientology related coatrack. I'd urge the keep voters to see if they can give that solid references, if they can, they'll have my support. Otherwise delete.--Scott Mac 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - he's not notable GNG three single issue cites doesn't make a worthwhile biography, that is if there are even three worthwhile reliable cites. If he is a single issue then redirect him there and add a comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Per BLP1E, this is not the sort of coverage that justifies a biography. If the person is or was a "poster child" for Scientology's anti-psychiatry campaign, as the article claims, then perhaps the affair should be mentioned in Scientology and psychiatry. At present there is no such mention in that article. There was a controversy around Gyory, in which the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Thomas Szasz got involved: [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JTKMvj27w5gC&pg=PA129&dq=%22Victor+Gyory%22&hl=en&ei=lFsiTeX4I8imhAfNxuG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Victor%20Gyory%22&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=lPhL9CmSjPYC&pg=PA98&dq=%22Victor+Gy%C5%91ry%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PHUpAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Victor+Gyory%22&dq=%22Victor+Gyory%22&hl=en&ei=lFsiTeX4I8imhAfNxuG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw]. Neither Citizens Commission on Human Rights (an organization supported by Scientology) nor Thomas Szasz mention the case either. Leaning towards delete (or merge to one of the other articles mentioned), absent any solid evidence that the case changed law. --JN466 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

::Moved the article to Involuntary commitment of Victor Győry, per WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia^talk 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, that is helpful. Perhaps we should allow Cyclopia to do a bit more work on the article and then revisit. --JN466 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

:Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. --JN466 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: To Jayen and Scott: Indeed, no RS strictly justify the Scientology claim, so I removed it; a book source details his release and makes no mention of the CoS. The article is now "Scientology-free", corresponding to sourcing. --Cyclopia^talk 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm still seeing absolutely no assertion of significance except "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" - which utterly lacks any substantiation.--Scott Mac 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• WP:GNG requires no "assertion of significance" (cfr. also WP:IDONTKNOWIT for a related read) but only "significant coverage". We have the latter. I agree that claim lacks substantiation (I'm still searching for sources about that), but it's entirely irrelevant to guidelines and policy. --Cyclopia^talk 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Guidelines are only guidelines and don't have to be followed to unsupportable conclusions (indeed, they don't have to be followed at all), when we are dealing with an unfortunate case of a living person I (and I suspect others) require there to be some importance or significance before we argue for keeping it. If this case has really had an impact on legislation then it is obviously a keeper, without that it ought to be deleted. I sure no one is arguing on the basis of not having heard of it, so I can't see the point of your reference to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Scott Mac 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• This is not an anarchy. Guidelines have to be followed, unless in peculiar cases where there are very strong and serious reasons for the contrary. GNG is one of the most respected and engrained guidelines, the basic reference point for deletion discussions. There is nothing that makes this article exceptional with respect to others so I don't see any proper reason to ignore WP:GNG. If you want to change it to include your "significance" criteria, you're welcome, but seek consensus on the proper venues (e.g. RfC). For now, it is clear that your opinion, while respectable, is not supported by guidelines or policies. --Cyclopia^talk 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cyclopia as much as you'd like that to be the case, you know that it is wrong. Guideliens do NOT have to be followed, never have. Guidelines do not proscribe, they merely describe. They describe what consensus tends to do in deletion discussions - and consensus is not static. Guidelines are not legislation - we change as discussions change and then people update the guidelines to reflect that. Personally, I don't read notability guidelines. I choose to consider each case on its merits. I know others find them helpful - and that's fine. However, they bind nothing and no one. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. If you wish it to be different, then you need to change fundamental policy.--Scott Mac 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Not to mention the fact that notability guidelines merely provide help with the bare minimum requirements for entries vis-a-vis notability. Editors like Cyclopia appear to treat these guidelines as rules governing which entries should always be kept, and that is simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• It's not wrong. WP:GUIDELINE (a procedural policy) says: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Common sense and occasional exceptions, fine. Now, either you explain why you think this is a case worth an occasional exception, or you should accept it and follow it. And yes, in general AfD consensual practice is that if a subject meets GNG then the article is kept (again, with occasional exception, e.g. a notable subject may be best merged somewhere else for other reasons). It is you both that are misrepresenting WP. --Cyclopia^talk 13:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that. As for deletion discussions, unless the article violates actual policy, the decision to delete or retain rests with consensus. People may choose to be influenced by the notability guidelines when opining - personally, I don't. I take each case on its merits, discuss it, and attempt to shape a consensus. --Scott Mac 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that - It may be wrong in your personal imaginary world, but in the real world of WP it is policy. I know that humbleness is not your strength, but could you admit that perhaps you may be wrong, sometimes? --Cyclopia^talk 14:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Repeated supporting of low quality , low notability and uncited content is extremely detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cyclopia, you have also not dealt with my point at all. WP:GNG is not a mandate to keep any entry that qualifies, and nothing you have quoted disproves that assertion. Besides this fact, the applicable sub-guideline here is WP:VICTIM, and it complicates your claims quite a bit. The existence of sub-guidelines, like WP:PEOPLE, or WP:VICTIM, speaks exactly to Scott's point btw. Not every context, or every subject matter fits neatly into the WP:GNG scheme. We have sub-guidelines for that reason, and in the end we have case by case analysis as well. You can chose to deal with this reality or just repeat your self to absurdity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oh here is what WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. - Yes, there is the famous presumption clause, but to appeal to this you need to bring further guidelines/policies that the article violates. I don't see any. I don't get why you cite WP:PEOPLE or WP:VICTIM, since the article is (now) about the case, and not about the person, and as such it is compliant with WP:BLP1E and falls out of the scope of WP:PEOPLE guidelines. --Cyclopia^talk 14:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Of course the entry is about a victim. The fact that you changed the title to represent the act of victimization, instead of just the victim, doesn't change the nature of the content. Despite the incessant wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery you are continually failing to address my other point. GNG does not say that every entry that is "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" ought to be in the encyclopedia. It certainly does not say that every article that meets the general inclusion criteria, as opposed to more specific guidelines ought to always be kept. There are clearly cases, all the time, when GNG is met but relevant policies overrule inclusion in the encyclopedia. There are also clearly cases in which someone such as yourself argues that it is met but others disagree with inclusion and delete entries. Why does that happen? Because as Scott has tried telling you repeatedly GNG is not a policy but a guideline ... something to help us navigate the issues only. I'm done. Keep on wiki-lawyering for inclusion if you want. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The entry is about a case: this is not wiki-lawyering, it is a fact. More specific guidelines extend GNG, do not substitute it. About Scott, well, he is convinced that policies are "wrong"; it may be that you two agree on that, but seek consensus to change WP:GUIDELINE and come back before saying "it's just a guideline": policy says we ought to follow guidelines apart from occasional cases requiring an exception. And, yes, if something satisfies the inclusion criteria and does not break other policies/guidelines, no reason to delete it exists. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. This debate has been brought to the attention of members of the "article rescue squadron" which is dedicated to saving articles. You may wish to take into account the ways in which this may impact on consensus in this debate.--Scott Mac 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Actually it is dedicated to source and edit them in order to make them policy-compliant in deletion discussion. I very rarely tag stuff for rescue: this is a case where more eyes and hands helping with sourcing/editing could be essential. --Cyclopia^talk 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Well, we can agree to disagree on the effect of your template, and the closer can make their own assessment.--Scott Mac 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The issue I have seen that is worth considering is that a group of people that are dedicated to preserve articles and that is fine it they come and improve an article but if the template attracts keep comments from there and no article improvement then that is a clear consideration as regards closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but I examine each article on the merits, and improve the article if I can. In this particular instance, I am unsure about notability of the article, and also whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments. So, I would lean toward the deletion side, but I am really undecided. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::What causes you to be unsure? There are multiple RS covering the subject. I also don't understand why "whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments" is of any relevance: what is important is coverage of that case. --Cyclopia^talk 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep- in my opinion the coverage is sufficient to meet our verifiability policy and our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Contrary to the opinions expressed above there is absolutely not indication of significant coverage here. "Significant coverage" requires multiple sources discussing the subject in detail. Two psychology text books mention this event anecdotally and a handful of local newspapers reported on it. This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia. The fact that it is a WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that it should be deleted at once. On a sidenote the entry was in an atrocious state and tagged as such for years. Why aren't people "rescuing" bad entries before they make it to AfD? That would be a much more productive exercise. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::#"Significant coverage" is explained by WP:GNG as: sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. - The sources absolutely do that, dedicating detailed paragraphs to the case.

::# This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy.

::#Article is no more a BLP, since it has been now renamed and refactored to cover the case and not the person, in compliance with WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:::WP:BLP applies to any article with biographical content in it. You're just wiki-lawyering now that you changed the title. I get it, you don't like BLP sensitivity, and I believe you've stated as much before, but at least people who try to protect BLP's are following policy mandates and aren't just trying to protect the sheer volume of the encyclopedia. Nothing of use can come from any future responses from me to you, so I bid you adieu.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on sources. I had to remove one of the three sources used for the entry because it was not itself discussing Gyory or the event in question. The source, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lPhL9CmSjPYC&pg=PA98&dq=Victor+Gy%C5%91ry&hl=en&ei=0lQiTbzyM8mb8QPt0vCXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Mental Illness] simply reprinted a blurb about Gyory from a Scientology publication while discussing a Scientology organization. Misusing references like this is not helpful to the process of figuring out if the event meets our threshold of notability or not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• note - the AFD link appears to now be broken from the article afer it was moved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The AfD notice's msg is fine, it is the ARS flag-waving template at the top with the redlink. I'm sure they can figure it out. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Classic WP:BLP1E, despite the lipstick-on-a-pig article rename. We have a story about one person who got a bit of press of one event. This is a person who would otherwise be completely unknown to the public save for this unfortunate circumstance of involuntary commitment, and he certainly has not sought publicity in the aftermath; no book tours, no visits to Oprah's couch. Exercise a bit of editorial discretion and snip this tawdry crap out of the project, please. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Article as such really doesn't assert any real notability. Oh, it's a shame and a travesty that it happened, and there should have been greater publicity over this and significant reforms should have been spurred by the case... but we work with what is, not with what should be. Delete. DS (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:To clarify - if Mr Gyory's case had actually led to reforms comparable to those of which resulted from the incarceration of Ernesto Miranda, there would be much more coverage of him. There is not. Quod erat demonstrandum. DS (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::However nothing of what you said has to do with our general notability guidelines, which only require coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Cyclopia^talk 22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Notability guidelines are not proscriptive.--Scott Mac 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect - per nom and WP:BLP1E. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• : Or redirect to write-up by Jayen466 mentioned below. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I've added a write-up of the case at Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. One of the sources, {{cite news |first=Larry|last=Ferguson|url=|title=CCHR Using Publicity to Improve Mental Care |work=Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph|date=1974-07-05}}, called it the CCHR's "first victory", so it is a notable case to mention within that article. It's probably better housed there than in a standalone article. --JN466 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

::I am personally happy with the merge -sounds like a good compromise --Cyclopia^talk 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I was looking through the Google book results. Most of this comes from the Scientologist and their Citizens Commission on Human Rights. They published a pamphlet of this case, and state it was one of their organization's first major victories against psychiatry. I think a lot of the sources are from the Scientologist, not just the most obvious ones which have "Scientologist" in their title. Was this a notable enough case to change laws, or be mentioned in any books not related to this organization? Dream Focus 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Even Dream Focus isn't sure if this is a keeper. I propose we introduce a new speedy deletion criterion: "CSD G13: If Dream Focus doesn't submit a knee-jerk Keep !vote for the article, then it should be deleted immediately." {{;)}} SnottyWong ^chat 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

:*I'd support a less provocative version of that criterion. "CSD G13: No conceivable argument for keeping, as evidenced by DreamFocus not supporting retention of the article." :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news source and does not provide an article on every newsworthy event. In order to overcome this policy, the event would need to have wide demographic or geographic impact, be the precursor to or result of another notable event, and/or demonstrate sustained discussion sufficient to found a claim of historic importance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Citizens Commission on Human Rights#Efforts for psychiatric reform. A mention on that page seems appropriate, and since he's mentioned there, a redirect would do no harm; but he's in no way notable enough to justify a separate article, especially as he may be still alive (raising BLP concerns). Robofish (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect both title as per Robofish. The case is already written up in the CCHR article and certainly fails WP:EVENT - it's remembered by nobody but the CCHR, a separate article would be pushing their POV far too far. Cyclopia, I don't understand why you think this is a suitable article, we don't decide on inclusion simply by robotically counting references. Fences&Windows 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::It's not about mere robotical counting: once we have multiple reliable sources that cover a subject, however, a strong case for notability exists, and I've seen no compelling reasons to merely delete the information. However you will notice that I changed my !vote to redirect per the merge on CCHR. --Cyclopia^talk 01:58, 11 January 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.