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.
Despite playing
134 mins of professional football over a decade ago, I'm not seeing the depth required for
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches including
this one did not yield any decent coverage. Even Nemzeti Sport had nothing useful. I found 2 Q&A articles and will explain why they are not sufficient.
Felvidek is not an independent source since it's based on a press release from
FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín, his employer at the time. It also contains no independent analysis of his responses so, as per consensus at footballer AfDs, we wouldn't regard it as significant.
Sportolunk is another basic Q&A with no meaningful content from anyone other than Ágh himself, so does not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The bigger concern with the Felvidek source is that it lacks any substantial independent content. Last week, Zoltán Ágh, the newest member of STK Somorja, trained hard. He returned to Somorja after a half-year detour from Sopron is pretty much all that it says about him. Most of the rest is direct quotes from him and consensus at AfD is that Q&As with little independent content do not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG per nom's detailed source analysis (and yes club press releases on their own players are NOT independent sources regardless of which outlet publishes them).
Jogurney (
talk)
14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Press releases from clubs about its own players are never, ever independent sources.
Alvaldi (
talk)
16:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Above Keeps provides no sources, just a false claim about press releases showing notability, but it is worth noting the best sources Keep votes can produce are just press releases.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (
WP:V and
WP:BLP) and guidelines (
WP:BIO and
WP:IS,
WP:RS,
WP:SIGCOV). //
Timothy ::
talk19:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails both
WP:SPORTSBASIC and
WP:GNG. The argument that press releases count toward SIGCOV is ridiculous, as press releases by definition lack independence, are sometimes not independently fact checked by the third parties who publish them, and are therefore inherently unreliable.
4meter4 (
talk)
03:53, 10 April 2023 (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.
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.
Despite playing
134 mins of professional football over a decade ago, I'm not seeing the depth required for
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches including
this one did not yield any decent coverage. Even Nemzeti Sport had nothing useful. I found 2 Q&A articles and will explain why they are not sufficient.
Felvidek is not an independent source since it's based on a press release from
FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín, his employer at the time. It also contains no independent analysis of his responses so, as per consensus at footballer AfDs, we wouldn't regard it as significant.
Sportolunk is another basic Q&A with no meaningful content from anyone other than Ágh himself, so does not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The bigger concern with the Felvidek source is that it lacks any substantial independent content. Last week, Zoltán Ágh, the newest member of STK Somorja, trained hard. He returned to Somorja after a half-year detour from Sopron is pretty much all that it says about him. Most of the rest is direct quotes from him and consensus at AfD is that Q&As with little independent content do not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG per nom's detailed source analysis (and yes club press releases on their own players are NOT independent sources regardless of which outlet publishes them).
Jogurney (
talk)
14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Press releases from clubs about its own players are never, ever independent sources.
Alvaldi (
talk)
16:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Above Keeps provides no sources, just a false claim about press releases showing notability, but it is worth noting the best sources Keep votes can produce are just press releases.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (
WP:V and
WP:BLP) and guidelines (
WP:BIO and
WP:IS,
WP:RS,
WP:SIGCOV). //
Timothy ::
talk19:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails both
WP:SPORTSBASIC and
WP:GNG. The argument that press releases count toward SIGCOV is ridiculous, as press releases by definition lack independence, are sometimes not independently fact checked by the third parties who publish them, and are therefore inherently unreliable.
4meter4 (
talk)
03:53, 10 April 2023 (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.