Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryszard Walkiewicz


 * 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. I'm goingto be bold and close this as delete. The challenge in the deletion rationale was not, "does this player pass NFOOTY", but "is the presumption of GNG afforded by NFOOTY justified in this instance"? There has been a lot of discussion, but tellingly, nothing from any of the keep votes asserts GNG, with sources provided in the article being only the briefest of mentions by name. There are clearly sources covering this time period of football in Poland but, tellingly also, none to date unearthed that discuss this player in detail Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryszard Walkiewicz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Professional football did not exist at the time this footballer played, but he did feature in the highest league of a decent footballing nation – on a single occasion. I firmly believe the spirit of the inclusion guideline is to set the bar higher than that. The WikiProject Football has a couple of AFD outcomes where current players, who played a single match on an actual professional level, had their articles deleted after it became clear that the single game was their only accomplishment. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the spirit of the guideline is to include those who have appeared in a single game or more - if the guideline for inclusion were two games, it would be two games. The articles mentioned above were deleted after it was demonstrated WP:GNG had not been satisfied. Here whether WP:GNG is met is a bit obfuscated, as the article's a bit overly reliant on lechia.net, but he made multiple appearances for the team (including cup appearances) and while not much else comes up on the internet I'm entirely unable to search period Polish pieces of the era. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the requirement. The spirit or letter of SNG is perhaps whatever the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says it is. The article should be developed and WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm really not seeing GNG here, can keep voters please indicate why someone who made a very small number of appearances can reasonably be presumed to have garnered sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG? That seems counter intuitive to me.
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep NFOOTBALL is met. We're not really going to have a GNG discussion about a 1950s Polish player are we, with no access to Polish media from the immediate post-war period? Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as stated NFOOTBALL is clearly met, however if this discussion is now about GNG then I would like to add my thoughts on the topic.
 * - 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." - In terms of the subject, Ryszard Walkiewicz, I feel there significant coverage about his time with Lechia Gdańsk, in terms that it proves he played with them and clearly states which games he played. While it is not as clear how many times he played for Unia Tarnów, there are two different sources proving that he did.


 * - Reliable "means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability" & sources "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" - As of the reliable source guideline this article does not fail this section. I would argue that two of the references are secondary sources. His time at Lechia is shown simply by the facts, so primary, but that does not mean it's unreliable. As mentioned above by Nfitz - "We're not really going to have a GNG discussion about a 1950s Polish player are we, with no access to Polish media from the immediate post-war period?" the sources section clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage", in terms of 1940's-60's Poland, coverage wasn't an important issue. What I have done is provide the coverage and depth available, from as many sources as available.


 * - Independent of the subject: doesn't even need to be looked at as none of them are written by the subject.


 * - 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" - I agree with this section, however due to NFOOTBALL Ryszard Walkiewicz is entitled to an article.
 * OLLSZCZ (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sources satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement by addressing the topic in detail? – Levivich 21:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keeps need to be aware that technical passes of NFOOTY, but with a full fail of GNG (e.g. no decent RS), are often deleted UNLESS there were several games played (e.g. a stronger pass of NFOOTY); try one last re-list
 * Keep per above. Seems like all the conditions are met. RockingGeo  岩石  Talk  17:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)  Sock strike. – Levivich  19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – per longstanding consensus that a bare NFOOTY pass (like one game) is not a reason to keep an article when there's a total failure of GNG. – Levivich 00:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, The rules might be different when there was no professional football and the number players was limited. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what sources does it pass GNG? Unless I'm missing something, I've seen zero potential GNG sources put forward so far. The sources in the article right now are either statistics or merely the player's name listed in a list of players. – Levivich 01:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2019 (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.