Talk:Vivien Keszthelyi

Outdated references and unclear claims

An old article on this person was deleted for being promotional. This is apparently a newly created version, and yet many of the references are old and out of date, with "access dates" up to seven years old, despite the article being created less than 3 months ago. I have taken out a bunch of dead and irrelevant links, but there probably needs more work done on this. Alongside this, some of the claims in the article are unclear. Just for one, the opening paragraph says she has "won three touring car championship titles" - neither of the supporting references seem to verify that (they certainly don't use that wording); the infobox lists one, the results section of the article says nothing of the sort, and her current W Series profile says she has had 3 podium finishes. What is going on here? Melcous (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

„This content has been disputed here by mutiple editors”

@Melcous: Hello! We got an email in OTRS about this article and I try to help the person seemingly fight with you about the article content. First, I need your help! Could you please tell me where and who were those multiple editors disputing facts, and what those facts were? The email mentioned that the removed information was sourced but there are so many criss-cross changes in the article that I cannot figure out exactly what was disputed by whom and on what basis, and what its original sources may have been.

I would like to prevent an unnecessary friction with editors who may not be able to read foreign language (Hungarian) sources, or editors who are not familar with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your help! --grin ✎ 08:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

grin, there is a long history of conflict of interest editing on this article which is available if you look. It was originally created by User:Vivien Keszthelyi, who disclosed they were someone from her "team" and written like an advertisement, as recounted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivien Keszthelyi. It was deleted in February 2020 as both promotional and non-notable: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivien Keszthelyi (3rd nomination). It was then recreated in June 2020 by User:Monapop who has since been blocked for sock puppetry for behaviour on this article: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HigyFlyer6/Archive. Since those 3 editors of the article were blocked in December 2020, 3 new WP:SPA editors have appeared: User:Justive4535, User:Kcmejcena2, and User:Cruffsneck, all making exactly the same kinds of edits. Pinging Callanecc who blocked the previous SPs, and DGG, S Marshall and 78.26 who were involved in the previous deletion discussion. Melcous (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We need AfD, delete, and salt.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not see this as meting the objections in the last AfD, so it might qualify for speedy as a unimproved re-creation. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Melcous: @S Marshall: @DGG: I am well aware of the editor attitude and please note that this was specifically not my question. (You are probably aware as well that people unfamililar with Wikipedia often think that repeatedly inserting anything without a discussion is acceptable, and things happen like it did here. I do not have time now to teach them how to edit - I am here to help with the article content.)

My question was - and I think it is a rather important difference - what was the problem with the content. I am not interested in the behaviour of the editors making any or all of the edits, nor their intents; I specifically asked about the objections about the content. As far as I am able to judge (which is admittedly not much since I am not really involved in motor sports) this young lady has been winning a lot of races, has been in the first few places of championships since a pretty young age, has been national champion and female champion of various races and seems to have collected numerous accolades throughout. The facts seem to be backed up by almost a hundred independent sources. I am quite puzzled about how this article can't hit either Notability (like motorsports 1, 3 and 5), Verifiability (50+ sources) or else (deletion was voted by the specific two persons we have here), so this is why I ask you here. If the content of the article meets the guidelines then I see no reason not to keep it, apart from any possible de-advertisement cleanup (though I have skimmed through and I see no obvious problems in the article). Thank you! --grin ✎ 10:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Repeated re-creation of content that's promotional in effect and, clearly, intent. We've got very accustomed to people who do this, on Wikipedia, because a Wikipedia article has such an effect on a google search, and that's why we've needed to develop very streamlined and efficient means of shutting such people down. We won't engage in a detailed conversation about what's wrong and how to fix it because there are hundreds of thousands of these, and we just can't.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use this "discussion" (including the fact that you have started an AfD instead of discussion) as a great example in the CoC discussion and the general unacceptable behaviours of editors, the lack of cooperation, lack of will of discussion and general lack of civil behaviour. Have a nice day! --grin ✎ 22:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

grin I'm not sure if there is a language issue here or just misunderstanding without tone, but it may be that the so-called "rudeness" is seen to go both ways. The initial question I was asked was "where and who were those multiple editors disputing facts" which I attempted to clearly answer. I thought explaining that would make obvious the kind of content that has been in dispute here, but if you're looking for a specific example how about this version of the article. I have not commented on the AfD as I really have no informed opinion on that, but what is not ok is consistent addition of promotional commentary and excessive repetitive lists and statistics. If the article is kept as seems likely, I would not like to see it back to that kind of version and I personally see no problem with it as it currently is. Melcous (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Melcous: If anyone believes that it is a language barrier on my side then I would expect them to take extreme care to phrase a repply after carefully understanding what I might wanted to tell. Nevertheless, I do not believe anyone actually succeeded to detail me the problems with the content of the article; I have got various versions about the editor who created it and some non-specific suggestion about "advertisement-likeness" which I was not able to connect to the actual state of the article. My comments about the subject meeting various minimum requirements were ignored. (Deletion guidelines are pretty clear about possible reasons and there is no part which say that articles can be deleted due to created by "bad" editors.)

While I clearly see the problems with the editor behaviour I do not subscribe to the "article content is bad since the editor made mistakes" narrative. What you mention (now) as reasons for deletion (like excessive repetitive lists and statistics) are partially responses to the people wanting to delete the article and the editor have visibly tried to comply with "get more justification of Notability" by including details. Also I observe lot of sports related articles with "excessive amount of statistics", which is not fitting my taste either but by no means justification for deletion.

But as for the specifics of "rudeness": starting a deletion process while having an ongoing discussion is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for me, being here around since 2003 and it would be extremely unacceptable if used against a new editor, visibly lacking the knowledge about some basic behavioural expectations but with visibly no bad intents. I could quote a half dozen guidelines from "assume good faith", "practice empathy", "civility" and "no abuse of seniority" (incidentally these were all quotes from the in-progress UCoC text, which is a direct summary of various guidelines) which were not followed and thus the behaviour shall be called "rude". As coming from someone who has been keeping discussions instead of administrative actions for almost two decades you can take my word with a bit more weight than you seem to do (and indeed that is calling the "seniority" card).

As for the state of the article: the Hungarian version has way more details and I am sure the original editor would wanted to expand it, provided his account was not banned. Possibly other Hungarian editors may come and help to expand it based on the sources in Hungarian. (I can understand why she is popular: it is fantastic that a female, and at such a young age reach so much success, and Hungary has no large pool of motorcar racers. ;-) Indeed seems to be a National Pride [per motorsport guidelines :)].) --grin ✎ 09:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

grin Just to clarify, I have not given "reasons for deletion" as you said, I have made no comment on deletion of the article at all. I am noting the promotionalism and excessive lists as the kind of content that has been disputed in the past and I am suggesting should not be added to the article again. It might also be worth noting what seems to be a common issue between editors of different language wikis: the policies, guidelines, and practices for English wikipedia differ from those for other language wikipedias, and so what might be ok on the Hungarian page may well not be ok here. If editors are coming across here from there, they may need to be careful not just to assume that what is accepted there will be accepted here. My personal opinion is that there would be no reason to significantly expand this article. Melcous (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Melcous: Thank you for the clarification. I have started the whole thread since I was asked for help, and I have examined the article history and the related communication and I have not been able to establish any reason for its deletion based on its content, so I came here and started a discussion to clarify, since I am definitely no deletionist: if a subject meets the guidelines it shall not be deleted but rather improved.

I am unfortunately deeply familiar with the bad mood and strange attitude on enwp, the massive pressure from deletionists, the often unacceptably stated requirements (a while ago I was demanded to provide a source which not only states exactly what was just a minor update, but it does not contain in the title, and also specifically contain all the words of my sentence and specifically states the specifically same connection between the words, despite that it was about an unprovable suggestion - it was a truly otherwordly experience) and the general aggressively negative attitude towards inexperienced editors. Often I hear the justification that "we do not have the time to be polite", "we do not have the time to cooperate", "we do not have the time to explain", of course not by using these words but acting like that. Happens way too often here around, and I am handling just a few OTRS help request of people not understanding what they have done wrong that their sourced and seemingly acceptably written article was deleted. I do a lot of explanations in the background.

I know the problem with "promotionalism" but we (in that small country) almost never delete an article with a notable subject just because it's not well written, it is preferred to be improved, and only get deleted if nobody was stepped in for a long time. (Incidentally enwp has the same guidelines and policies, it's just not the… popular custom to follow them this way.)

As for the lists: try to remove the statistics from, say Diego Maradona or Ayrton Senna and see what I mean when I say "it is widespread and accepted". This young lady can't show up F1 charts — yet, so the article contains whatever she have achieved until now. When she gets into the mainstream this probably will get filtered down; [motor]sports loving editors can probably tell you way more details about this. Until then I do not think it would be a kind of problem requiring fighting over or forcibly removed, despite I am sure some people would happily start quoting various guidelines justifying the unjustifiable.

I am surprised that anyone would say that there would be no reason to improve or expand any article. Wikipedia is not paper and articles can use as much space as justified. If there are things worth telling (and I mean here above threshold of various expected minimum) they should be included, especially for a living and active person who generates new live events as time goes by! :-) --grin ✎ 16:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

grin, again you seem to be misreading what I have said. I did not say there is no reason to improve the article, but that I do not think it needs to be significantly expanded, which in my opinion is what all the previous conflict of interest editors have done, trying to "puff it up" with promotional quotes about how amazing the subject and her achievements are. The current page allows the facts to speak for themselves, which is what we are aiming for in wikipedia biographies. Even the constant comparing of her to people like Senna, Maradona, or Hamilton causes similar responses in me. If one day she reaches the same level of achievement and fame as those people have, obviously the article on her will reflect that, because there will be much more written about her by reliable sources. For now, those are unhelpful comparisons, and particularly when coming from so many editors who are connected to her, just get neutral editors like me concerned that wikipedia is being used for purposes other than what it is for. Melcous (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Melcous: This is what I completely agree with! Unnecessary bloat, praise and quotes are really material to be deleted. It often happens due to lack of clear view of the difference between a promotional material and an encyclopedic article, and I am aware that this is a tough distinction for most of the non-involved people. My ongoing conflict here (in enwp) seems to be that some editors think that if someone write a marketingy article then it have to be deleted. This is a really bad attitude: articles shall be deleted based on subject and content, not the behaviour of the editor. The editors are not important! I am not important, my work is. If I am an evil serial killer (but don't tell anyone) but my articles are good then they shall be kept; same goes with people who take a good subject but write a not-so-good article. Escpecially sad to see that some editors wrote "and salt" without actually taking a moment to think about the subject and whether it meets all the requirements to be kept. Advertisement tone text can be removed, rewritten, deletion shall be the last resort. Even people who love the topic can be asked to fix it up for their own pride. Happens all the time.

What I meant on responding on expansion is that Vivien had more events in the meantime which shall be included (and it is ongoing), and probably some relevant stats (not all, probably!) could be included to show her performance. I meant those, but also meant with help from editors familiar with the topic and who's able to pick which races have no relevance for international public. But I think we have no further disagreement here. Thank you for your responses, it seems to me that the article has been saved (and now I am aware that she exists :-) amazing new things to learn all the time). --grin ✎ 08:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Another "deletion" page opened

Just informing whoever follow the page that the same editor who started the last deletion started a deletion review here, making statements about the people voted. --grin ✎ 18:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. That editor accused me of being "suspicious" and didn't even bother to notify me. He made accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry against multiple other people who commented on the AfD as well, and he likely dd not notify them either. Anyone who commented on the AfD may wish to follow that link to see whether or not we count as "good faith editors" according to an admin. Also, isn't it a requirement for him to have posted something either on the article or this talk page about that deletion review? Hyperion35 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35: Apart from saying "yes" repeatedly there's not much I could add, really. Editors with 10+ years of editing and admins are sockpuppets, that's a new level of approach for me even here on enwp. Kind of making me wanting to discuss the whole approach with the wider community. Someday. --grin ✎ 08:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)