Gyula Iványi : At the time of its creation it was sourced only to unselective databases.   Because it met all the criteria for WP:LUGSTUBS , it was speedily draftified at the end of the second close review.  After this, User:BeanieFan11 moved it back to mainspace on the basis of this source , but I have grave doubts about its reliability.   BeanieFan11 was under the impression that the source was a "museum of fencing".   I think it's a small Hungarian fencing school, and the .pdf is hardly an academic paper.   Please will the community approve this content's deletion.  — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ivanyi seems extremely likely notable.  The Olympedia piece contains various details and I would argue to be SIGCOV, and the other source seems like something that would be reliable in my opinion.  It seems to be a school dedicated to teaching fencing and preserving its history in Hungary, and it says it has a partnership with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (I knew it had something to do with a museum!).  The source itself is very in-depth and if reliable would be the second piece of SIGCOV.  I'd also like to note that the source at several times mentions how newspapers/books discussed him ("the ... newspapers of the time highlighted that he was the best fencer in the eighth final" ... "Competitive fencing literature rightly considers Ivány the first great Hungarian swordsman,") and that seems to almost guarantee that there's further offline coverage, especially if many sources regard him as "the first great Hungarian swordsman".  It also seems he won their first national championship in fencing, too.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find anything for this person.  I think the reference used above is ok-ish.  A few more like that, we'd be at notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG only requires two pieces of SIGCOV.  We've got the Olympedia piece and then the one above.  Not to mention that there's assuredly offline sources as this guy seems to have been one of the best fencers of his era and one of the greatest from his country all-time.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Olympedia is completionist.   It aims to be a comprehensive list of every Olympic accomplishment by every Olympian.   Which is a worthwhile endeavour, and I'm glad it exists, but the fact that it is unselective makes it inherently indiscriminate .   So Olympedia can't ever be SIGCOV. — S Marshall T / C 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're link doesn't say anything about "completionist sources" at all.  Nor have I ever seen mention of that anywhere else...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you really not see the link between "completionist" and "indiscriminate"? — S Marshall T / C 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but I'm still not seeing how it would not count as SIGCOV, all I know is that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the second bullet point in WP:SIGCOV, yes.   The first bullet point says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.  A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Can you see where that is now?   Directly above the sentence you quoted? — S Marshall T / C 23:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how the information in the article is "done at random or without careful judgment" (indiscriminate definition), nor do I see how it is "not put in context" and "not referenced to independent sources" (what it says in your NOT link).  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it.   When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N. — S Marshall T / C 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Says what?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, I find that query hard to understand.   Could you ask your question another way? — S Marshall T / C 23:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What says A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it.   When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N ?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did.   But I'm not the Infallible Guru of All Wikipedia Policy, so I've asked the experts to confirm or deny my view at Wikipedia talk:Notability#WP:N and WP:IINFO . — S Marshall T / C 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we start to exclude sources because they include details on every item in a set then we're on very shaky ground - lots of very reliable entirely authoritative sources do that (say, Oscar winning Best Films, for example).  I would also draw a distinction between an Olympedia article with no prose at all about a person, one with brief prose about their sporting achievements only and one with a more detailed biography.  Not every profile at all has any prose and I don't think anyone's arguing that an Olympedia profile without any prose is justification for keeping an article.  But the subset of profiles which have decent prose seem decent sources.  In particular once a profile gets to two decent sized paragraphs I'm fairly convinced we'll be able to find other sources pretty reliably.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Hungary Wikipedia page on him seems to have a bunch of offline sources.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BeanieFan11 - Beanie, I've found more sources where I believe he is mentioned here - https://adt.arcanum.com/en/search/results/? list=eyJxdWVyeSI6ICJHeXVsYSBJdlx1MDBlMW55aSB2XHUwMGVkdlx1MDBlMXMifQ&per_page=20 KatoKungLee ( talk ) 01:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No evidence that the source is reliable; being published by a small fencing school without any editorial policy or similar makes it self published, and as we cannot identify the author we cannot consider whether the SME exception applies.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, it seems to be partnered with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (if I translated that correctly) - that would likely be a reliable source, no?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be, but unless the institute is involved in the publication of these documents - and I see no reason to believe it is, being partnered doesn't mean that everything the less reliable entity does is subject to oversight - then whether it is a reliable source or not is not relevant.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the looks of it, it would seem that the museum would have to have had something to do with it (how else would the fencing school established in 2012 have access to 1900 newspapers, something they cited in the article on Ivanyi)?  Also, not sure if this helps, but they seem to have kept a list of newspaper articles discussing them here (you have to click on the images).  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have access to 1900 newspapers, does that mean a museum has something to do with my work?  Clicking that link, I only see one newspaper , and it doesn't appear to be relevant.  Can you directly link the images you think are relevant?  BilledMammal ( talk ) 23:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have access to Hungarian newspapers from 1900?  The other newspapers/websites are the ones like [1] and [2] that mention them; the latter seems to be citing them (or at least their founder) for a statement about a historical fencer.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the source found below; it appears to be reliable and significant coverage.  I will note that it would have been better if editors had looked for such sources prior to moving this article back from draft space; the initial source provided was not suitable and discussion on it consumed editor time that would have been better spent looking for suitable sources.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a paywalled Hungarian newspaper archive website, and it turns up over 2,000 results for his name , including one preview that seems to say something like "We indicated in our last issue and read in the sports section of the dailies that Gyula Iványi is the true meaning of the Hungarian swordsman."  He looks highly, highly likely notable.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From this preview, it looks like there was even a newspaper two years ago talking about how great a fencer he was!  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found it .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think that the "delete" folks made some valid arguments.     But IMO there is enough there to keep.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 02:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very worst this is a redirect to some kind of suitable article ( Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sabre for example.  The Olympia article by itself suggests that there is the strong probability that other sources will exist to allow the article to be fully developed at a later date.  Given the state of the article right now though I'd be entirely relaxed about keeping it - especially given the era he was active in and the sport he competed in.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Its clear this has to stay.  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Hungary .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 29 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: withdrawn