Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoltán Puskás

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. After 2 weeks I conclude the delete arguments are stronger than the sole keep vote which says little about how the sources provided satisfy gng, whereas the delete votes provide a much more comprehensive assessment. Fenix down (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Puskás

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A similar case to recently deleted Balázs Banai. There is a weak presumption of notability from his 1 minute of professional football 10 years ago. His career since then has been played at lower levels and he is currently playing two tiers below professional level, so no immediate likelihood of building on his 1 minute.

Google searches and a Hungarian source search came back with some relevant hits, but no clear significant coverage. I found Radio7 and NB3 each had a small transfer announcement about him. I also found that BAON had a couple of match reports which mention him in passing here and here.

No sign of a

WP:NFOOTBALL pass several years ago is insufficient when GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, and good enough coverage to pass GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst NB3 may appear to provide some significant coverage of his career. In my opinion, it's little more than just a prose version of the stats from his HLSZ or MLSZ profile page. It doesn't really add any extra content or analysis so it's debatable as to whether it's significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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.