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. I was really hoping to find some kind of consensus here, but after discarding the non-P&G-based arguments and those apparently canvassed here, we are still left with views split evenly. I don't think a fourth relisting, as suggested by the nom, would bring about a sea change in either direction. To avoid rehashing the same arguments, please do not renominate for six months. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG?Ynsfial (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Exactly. Thank you.Ynsfial (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’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)[reply]

  Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG?Ynsfial (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  So it's a weak keep? Those 2 articles are 100% of the coverage and The Netherlands media coverage doesn't even pass the way I see it. Do you have any other coverage?Ynsfial (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For a strong keep, there isn't much of a strong argument. How does he pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:PERPETRATOR? He's not comparable to Roman Polanski at alll... Being a convicted felon has nothing to do with notability besides inciting an emotional response from many editors.Ynsfial (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer 01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The award is not well known and significant as WP:ANYBIO requiresYnsfial (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The key points to ponder include:

1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.

2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.

3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.

4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.

In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.--50.46.167.81 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Strong keep’’’: The coverage in the Stuff article clearly establishes [[WP

]]. He has published many books and ebooks. He was found guilty of the crimes, and I suspect that someone is trying to remove this site from Wikipedia because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.56.207 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia needs Multiple not only one. TheChronikler7 (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can publish many ebooks and books and be convicted of a crime. That won't make me Wikipedia notable...Ynsfial (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR, most of the books published by Sounding-Light Publishing, which is owned by Imre Vallyon. See [1] TheChronikler7 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all notability guidelines, and there are three Keep comments from IPs; hopefully it's a WP:COI. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I'm seeing No consensus just like the last AFD in May 2024.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faizi Dehlvi, I edit from IP and this is allowed by Wikipedia. If all you can write is that fails "all notability guidelines" and accuse someone of COI, then I have similar concerns about you. As a matter of fact, one of the "users" was a paid editor here and was blocked for sockpuppeteering. The problem is that you came here with no arguments behind your opinion and started with non-constructive claims 50.46.167.81 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The award implies notability; the Stuff article seems like a RS. with the rest of the sourcing, can easily establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One book review published in a newspaper [2] but it seems to be a copy from a blog, so take it with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The book is published by Sounding-Light Publishing, which is owned by Imre Vallyon see This. Do you still consider it Good enough? TheChronikler7 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, maybe not. On the whole, I think we still have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As brought up in the other discussion, the review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it appears to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:

  "Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone.

  Mooonswimmer 01:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the rest of the sourcing? Mooonswimmer 01:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The case for Vallyon is barely passing for notability in my opinion. His actions were covered internationally in New Zealand and the Netherlands, which establishes WP:CRIME, and he has enough secondary sourcing. Additional comment: noting that a blocked sockpuppet editor AstridMitch was an active contributor to this case, which suggests a targeted action. Silvymaro (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Silvymaro, I would not take their participation as targeted, they participated in quite a lot of AFDs on many different topics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the sufficient secondary sourcing? And what do you mean by WP:CRIME is established? Mooonswimmer 01:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Assessment of the sources brought up: *

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Stuff	No apparent connection to Vallyon or his group	Major New Zealand newspaper	While focusing on his crimes, the article covers Vallyon himself in-depth	✔ Yes
Seattle Pi	Republished review from Blogcritics. The website's About us states: "Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone."	Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that Blogcritics hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger.	Review (albeit poorly written) of Vallyon's book	✘ No
NOS	No apparent connection to Vallyon or his group	Major Dutch publication	~ The articles focuses on the FHL breaking ties with Vallyon and on his crimes. Almost nothing about Vallyon not related to the crimes, or about his teachings. The FHL is a non-notable organization.	~ Partial
Horror News	Horror New's website has sections entitled "How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net?" and "How to Expedite your Film Review?" Their About us states: "HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."		Review (albeit poorly written) of Vallyon's book	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Note that the two books reviews are both published on websites that churn out reviews for SEO, and that the only other two sources were published with a focus on his crimes. Absolutely nothing on his foundation, his teachings and philosophy, his books. Mooonswimmer 02:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Liz, I don't know if it is proper to ask but I'm hoping we could get a fourth and final relist. After reading WP:RELIST, I see might be possible. There's still some time and discussion needed to sort out the points that've been raised. 2 editors claim the subject meets GNG without providing any sources, while others say he meets notability as an author or criminal without showing which criteria he meets or backing it up with sources. Ynsfial (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ynsfial, the only time I've seen four relistings, it has been an accident, the relister didn't count the relistings correctly or just missed seeing one. In fact, there is a solid group of editors who don't think a discussion should be relisted more than twice. So, I don't see a 4th relisting happening. If there isn't a consensus, and I haven't reviewed this discussion thoroughly, it's more likely to close as "No consensus". A nominator always has an option to bring the article back for another go-round at a future AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 9 August 2024 (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.