Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Kotwica

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. Although borderline, it seems to me that the references have been considered and found insufficient. Arguments based on the player having played in League 2 are not admissible, per the link provided by GiantSnowman. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Kotwica

[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)

This was just speedy deleted from pl wiki, which is often more inclusive than English, and the article doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NBIO. Minor player, sources fail SIGCOV (stats) or are press releases from the club he plays at (Cheltenham Town F.C.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Did not play internationally. At league career the best achivement is playing for fourth-tier in UK what is too few. Not big chance for career in future especially that now he plays in lower tiers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as I couldn't find significant coverage of him. It doesn't matter what level someone plays at as GNG has to be passed. Dougal18 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Only sources I can find are routine transfer pieces, surprising given he had a decent career in League Two. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just created Lewis Shipley, how is this article is notable if Kotwica's not? Martinklavier (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought that consensus was such that every player spent a single minute in a professional league match is eligible for an article. Otherwise we need to delete hundreds articles of current and past players in League Two, League One and probably Championship. Martinklavier (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that consensus has been overturned long ago. Ugh, link, link. @Levivich, I vaguely think you may know what discussion I am thinking of? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 - being a professional footballer is not enough, there must be significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage online like this BBC article, this, this, this, and tons of coverage online. Not really understanding this nomination, as there's enough sources to clearly satisfy GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine contract news; about a schoolboy breaking his record; interview in local media; routine and non-independent. I found 2 of those 4 in my own search. Where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 07:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and Martinklavier. Enough sources imo. Also is payer wiht over 30+ games in fully pro EFL Leauge Two with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's borderline. Sources are relevant and significant and trustworthy. ButtonPocketSquare899 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are routine transaction reports,[1] have little independent coverage,[2][3] or are non-independent and trivial.[4]

JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The four refs are unsuitable as sources to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:13, 25 September 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.