Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamás Romhányi


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tamás Romhányi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was ''Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG. While, to the letter, he meets WP:NSPORT, his only claim to notability pursuant to that guideline is having played stoppage time in one Hungarian top flight match six years ago.'' This remains valid. The original article's creator recreated it within 24 hours of it being deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * delete Fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: While he does pass NFOOTY he still fails WP:GNG at this moment. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. and WP:NFOOTBALL GiantSnowman 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - as the nominator explained, he does not fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As Romhányi has played, stoppage time or not, in a fully professional, top-level match, he meets the notability standard for professional athletes, and, therefore, should have an article on Wikipedia. As much as I hate to invoke WP:CSB this may be a case where it applies - a kicker who had only appeared in a National Football League game for one single punt in overtime would have been a WP:SNOW keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am loathe to counter with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but is the obvious response, to say nothing of the fact that American football is a completely different sport. The simple fact of the matter is that his only claim to notability is a single, incredibly brief event six years ago for which he has received nothing resembling significant coverage. He only barely meets notability in the specific, but very clearly fails notability in the general. The purpose of WP:NSPORT and the list of fully professional leagues being to determine at a glance which subjects are likely to meet the general notability guideline, it seems only common sense that an which so clearly fails WP:GNG should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relist rationale: more discussion needed as to which guideline should take precedence here.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:NFOOTBALL is dependent upon WP:GNG; GNG is more important. He fails GNG, has for some time, and no prospect of him never not. WP:COMMONSENSE has to prevail here. GiantSnowman 11:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! A triple negative. Have you considered running for office? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Case closed. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. He still fails WP:GNG – standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline (WP:NFOOTBALL). –  Kosm  1  fent  07:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that NSPORT states (in bold) that an article should meet GNG or the sport-specific criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment above. – Kosm  1  fent  07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Eldumpo (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If people think playing one game in the Hungarian league should not automatically confer notability, they ought to concentrate on trying to gain consensus to change NFOOTBALL/FPL accordingly. As things stand the wording indicates that one game is enough. Eldumpo (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, by and large, the Hungarian League should confer notability. The lede of WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it is to be used as rule of thumb, and that not all articles that meet it must be kept. Given that he's not received significant coverage for this one appearances, and the fact that it was extremely brief, suggests to me that this is one of those instances where to the letter adherence to the guideline as fewer merits than not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the lede of NSPORT also says in bold that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which from my point of view means that an article must either meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the major criticisms of WP:NSPORT, and rightfully so, is that it can be incredibly arbitrary, which is why the section the lede states "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." (emphasis theirs). In an article like this one, which only barely passes NSPORT, he's only ever played one fully pro match and only the stoppage time at that, where coverage of any kind is minimal, to say nothing of significant coverage, the only source listed is unreliable, and others are hard to come by (google provides exactly 1 reliable source on the first four pages when looking up his name), and the evolution of the article much beyond the microstub it currently is seems very unlikely, it only seems commons sense to me that the article should be deleted. I'm not suggesting the article fails WP:NSPORT, I'm just saying in this particular case it's not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sir Sputnik. Indeed, NSPORT contradicts itself, but don't play with the wording to argue that either GNG or NSPORT must be met, because that's not what NSPORT says at all. Those who believe that one appearance is enough should prove this made him more notable than before (by presenting appropriate sources), and not support keep only because of NSPORT's confusing wording. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  06:06, 15 August 2012 (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.