Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian Fuchs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Fuchs[edit]

Marian Fuchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this article technically meets WP:NSPORT, the only claim to notability is a brief Liga I appearance just under four years ago. More importantly, the article so clearly fails WP:GNG that it falls under the part of NSPORT that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (emphasis theirs) Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Nfitz:, that's not the argument here. As I am sure you know WP:GNG trumps any other notability guideline. It is accepted that he is a technical WP:NFOOTY pass, but as GS has shown above there is clear consensus that this is not relevant if a player plays only briefly in a fully professional league and then does nothing else to garner sufficient significant reliable coverage elsewhere to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your missing my point. I don't think that example applies, as I don't think 3 years is briefly. Nor do I think he's an older player that this is often used for. Nor do I think there was clear consensus - there are as many examples of the opposite happening. Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please show these examples then. My experience is the exact opposite, hence why GS is able to provide a long list of examples. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point? If I find one, you'd ask for more. If I found ten, you'd say they weren't done properly. Am I wrong? Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - For starters, the "older player" argument is slightly nonsensical; as Nfitz rightly pointed out, he's 21. He also doesn't fail GNG anywhere near as comprehensively as some people are trying to make out. [1] is neither purely routine, or trivial. That website has also got some other quotations from him, and maybe some more pieces, but it verifies that he was part of the Romanian Under-19 team as well [2], for example. Claiming he is totally non-notable is not something that matches the facts; he passes NFOOTBALL, and is at least partway on his way to meeting GNG as well (with a decent Romanian search, he may well pass it). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for researching Luke. I agree that the sporttim.ro piece is significant coverage, but it is from a blog so I'm not sure it fits the reliable source requirement. I couldn't find much of anything about Fuchs in gsp.ro or prosport.ro (which are the main national sports newspapers in Romania, see List of newspapers in Romania), so I'm wary of claims the article could meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 21:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG; based off historical AfDs that have had similar discussions, I think this article should be deleted. I have not seen much here to convince me otherwise. JMHamo (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukeno94. Subject passes the soccer-specific notability guideline by his appearance in the Romanian top division in recent years, which already makes him different from most of those AfDs listed above whose subjects had minimal appearances in the Russian third tier or whatever years ago, and where no secondary sources could be found. I'm not competent enough in the Romanian language or well enough acquainted with sources written in it to declare categorically that the subject clearly fails GNG. It seems to me that there's enough readily available non-trivial coverage to make it more than likely that he passes it. However, it does no harm to remember the lead section of WP:GNG (emphasis theirs):
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete - a review of online Romanian-language sources indicates that Fuchs appears in a few match reports, transfer announcements and an article noting that he might be named to the substitute's bench in 2010. There may be simply isn't significant coverage (this article is close), so NFOOTBALL may be isn't really satisfied for an article that so clearly doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on a second, did you read [3], which I highlighted? That definitely counted as significant coverage, since there is four paragraphs on the guy, some of which are an interview. In conjunction with that source you highlighted, surely this does confirm that GNG is satisfied? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but sporttim.ro is a blog. I'm not sure it is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Jogurney (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it? If that's the case, then I do apologize - all I have is Google Translate, and we all know how good that is! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click on login ("intra in cont" in Romanian), you'll quickly see that it's self published through WordPress. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough :) I don't need to change my vote though, just note that I am now disregarding the source I found and am using the source Jogurney found as the basis for my weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However if you click on editorial ("Redacţia" in Romanian) you'll see rather less quickly with the help of online translation tools that the site covers all local sport in the Timisoara area, has named correspondents, and its owner, Mihai Comşulea, who also wrote the piece about Mr Fuchs, claims to have 22 years editorial and journalistic experience in television and print media and to have had two books about football published. Which in terms of reliability would appear to rank it a bit above a random blog. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Although the website is self-published, it appears to be the work of experienced sports journalists. Seems like a reliable source after all. Perhaps this article can pass GNG, so I'm updating my !vote.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marian_Fuchs&oldid=1090003527"