Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (footballer)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (footballer)

[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)

Another draft objection. Thought he might be notable, as the one obit is of nice length and from a secondary source. The other 3 sources consist of a primary source and 2 database entries, so doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. As I said, was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 90minut.pl isn't a database (although it has one), its a news website, sport.pl is also a notable source. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Abcmaxx. Also definitely has offline sources, having played 10+ years for one of mosts successful Polish teams in the fully pro Polish top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline, perhaps. I looked for Polish online sources (mentions in Google Books) and got nothing. Also, no pl wii article? (There's a draft, worse than ours: pl:Wikipedysta:Brudnopis gościnny/Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (piłkarz)). Current sources are stat pages and obituaries. I am not impressed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient coverage to show notability. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage is significant and passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:29, 3 April 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.