Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imre Vallyon


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. No clear consensus to delete after a month of discussion and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Imre Vallyon

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

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary,  and New Zealand.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for. Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG.  Schwede 66  17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.
 * The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work, should be at basic notability. Discussed here in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
 * "HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."
 * It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.
 * The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
 * "Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The book review is a terrible source. Many egregious spelling mistakes (  thru  (!) and  alot  for example), it refers to the author by his first name and most importantly it's written by a random writer for a site that publishes paid book reviews as Moonswimmer pointed out. The other source is also unreliable. Are you still convinced they're enough for notability? Ynsfial (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: The stuff article and the Dutch-language NOS article establish WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on how these two articles establish his notability and what they establish his notability as? I agree the Stuff article would count even though it's a weak source considering it focuses on his crimes and a local newspaper reporting on crime committed by a local isn't so uncommon. The NOS article focuses on the Dutch branch of the FHL, which is not notable, breaking with its leader Vallyon. They mention a Dutch victim of his and mostly discuss the group and separation. There is some but little information to extract about Vallyon.
 * What is Vallyon notable as? As an author? Do you think the book reviews provided by Oaktree B are reliable? Or as the leader of the FHL? Or as a child molester? The latter is what the only two weak sources are focusing on. Are there any other sources? Ynsfial (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (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.