Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michał Lewandowski


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Michał Lewandowski

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Prod deleted on the basis that subject meets the now-obsolete football notability criteria. 98 appearances in a 3rd-level national league with no substantial media coverage is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agt x 11:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Was a WP:BEFORE done on this? A 3rd level team in some countries is very different to a 3rd level in others. The Serie C is a pretty decent league and while I'm relying completely on Google Translate, that first reference is a very good write up and could easily be used to expand the article. Then there is this decent blurb on his signing with ACR Messina and this blurb here, this write up here and a bit here, here and here. Given the number of games he has played, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more but my translation skills leave a lot to be desired too.— NZFC  (talk) (cont)  15:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Playing for a third-level team in any country is not, by itself, an indication notability. The question isn't whether the article could be expanded. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources of this person. There is one, single full length article about the subject in a reliable source. Then there's an article and a one paragraph blurb on a local sports website, a routine game write up on another local sports website, and offhand routine mentions elsewhere. That is not enough to establish notability. agt x  16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:GNG per sources that User:NZFC found. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG per sources details above. GiantSnowman 11:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes GNG, no BEFORE done, terrible nomination.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the keep !votes of contributors unwilling or unable to let go of WP:NFOOTY. In any other area, this type of coverage would not be deemed significant. It is routine. agt x  17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NFOOTY now redirects to WP:NSPORT as no special rules for football were needed. Said opinions closely follow WP:SPORTCRIT and the WP:GNG, hence are much better rooted in policy and guidelines than this comment. Also, prodding an article where opposition to deletion is to be expected is a clear violation of WP:PROD. There is not even the beginning of a case here for deletion, let alone for prodding! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting opposition and am frankly surprised to find it. This is a clear deletion. agt x  15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets criteria per sources above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (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.