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]
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]
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]
  • 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.
More