Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mátyás Balogh

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ficaia (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mátyás Balogh[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 evidence of notability: just a database entry Ficaia (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You did a WP:BEFORE, right? In seconds I found [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But do those sources demonstrate notability? I'm not sure they do. I'll close as keep if others disagree and/or improve the article. Ficaia (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, as there's enough coverage of this chap to easily pass WP:GNG. A few more sources [5], [6], [7], and that's just from a basic Google search. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above, which demonstrate significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources don't need to be in English to demonstrate notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Joseph. This is another bad nomination by Ficaia following this farcical effort only yesterday. People who cannot read articles properly and cannot perform BEFORE should not be raising cases at AfD. Btw, Joseph is absolutely right about non-English sources. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Well, feel free to improve the article if you can. It seems the only way to get these endless sports stubs improved is to AfD them. But I don't see anything in those news articles worth incorporating. Ficaia (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly the purpose of AFD is not cleanup, contrary to what you're saying. But I don't see anything in those news articles worth incorporating if you think there's literally nothing to add to a two line stub from 8 sources about him, you're wrong, there's lots of content about him. You're openly using AFD for an incorrect purpose/to prove a point, stop this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: do those sources demonstrate notability. And I don't think they do, as the coverage in them is trivial. Ficaia (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, [8] is an article of about 7,000 characters dedicated solely to him. How is that not significant coverage? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the substance of those 7,000 characters. Do they indicate he is a notable archer? To me, the articles read like nationalistic hype bloated with a bunch of trivia. However, if someone else comes along who disagrees with me, I'll close as keep. Ficaia (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ficaia. There are three people here who disagree with you so, as with Bradman Ediriweera yesterday, perhaps you had better close as keep. Notability is signified by multiple independent sources and here we have eight. I suggest you stay away from AfD as you demonstrably do not understand how it works and, by insisting that AfD is a means of getting articles cleaned up or expanded, you are breaching the spirit of the facility, especially as you are apparently incapable of doing BEFORE properly. People have been sanctioned in the past for abusing AfD and you will end up at ANI yourself if you continue in this way. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:33, 14 April 2022 (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.