Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imre Vallyon (2nd nomination)

Imre Vallyon
AfDs for this article:


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

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors,  and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you.Ynsfial (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * ’’’Keep’’’ He’s a convicted pedophile. Where’s the good in deleting this? Meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:E9F:8340:51A7:F4CD:CE5C:4B8B (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as thin as it is, the media coverage in New Zealand and the Netherlands establishes WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer// cloventt (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)