Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/András Burics


 * 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

András Burics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Based on Google News and DDG, looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC comprehensively. Best sources are HAON, which confirms that he is a defensive midfielder and that he is going on a loan, Nemzeti Sport, which is just a list of transfers/loans, and Rangadó 24, which mentions him twice in passing, regarding being released from a club - Kazincbarcikai SC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Hungary.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - for what it's worth, I'm surprised by this in-depth interview. I'd expect more, but I'm not doing well finding anything. Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Better than anything that I found but the issue with Q&A articles like this is that they contain little that we can build a meaningful biography from. Burics' views on a match or series of matches doesn't mean much to an encyclopaedia reader. I can't think of any good reason as to why they'd use that ghastly font colour either. I had to drag my mouse over the text just to read the cursed thing! So much for trying to make semi-pro Hungarian football accessible! Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per reference above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources (the interview is a primary source with nearly zero independent coverage). Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - interviews can't be counted as WP:RS, as they are not independent secondary sources. Angelo (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Ortizesp and Nfitz. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A basic Q&A with zero independent analysis does not confer notability Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:55, 26 January 2023 (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.