Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugeniusz Olszyna (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniusz Olszyna

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Nothing's changed from last month's AfD, which was a pretty decisive decision. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the coverage of this player’s death amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not significant. The player's death was a routine announcement per WP:ROUTINE. Adler3 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, significant encyclopedia entry sourced and cited in the article from 2003. Also you cannot expect Internet sources from the 70s and 80s can you. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the above User has been blocked indefintely so probably should be discounted. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is basically WP:BLUDGEON by now: WP:DROPTHESTICK. Let's not forget speedy delete was wrongly applied and had to be appealed to overturned. But let's refresh how ridiculous this nomination is.

the article was expanded from 3 to 7 sources, and was significantly expanded in content, so a lot has changed
the previous nomination was in no way decisive, misleading to claim it was.
there's a solid reason the speedy delete failed and appeal was successful, so the article us not the same is it.
the previous nomination said wanted more sources, wider range and include something that was not about his death: all these points have been met.
top player in the 70s, for two clubs that are still 2 of the top teams in the country
we would not be having this discussion if it was a Carlisle United player from the 70s would we? WP:BIAS.
All the sources are WP:RS
Radio Eska, Interia, and sport.pl are among the country's biggest news outlets. Lech Poznań themselves are a big European football club so also a good source. The Fuji encyclopedia is a massively popular vademecum on the subject, even if by now a bit dated. 90minut.pl is also a reliable news outlet although very niche.
The man retired over 40 years ago, so still in the PRL-era and way before the invention of the internet. Unless you happen to have a copy of the local paper from 4 decades ago lying around I'm not sure what sources you exactly expect; and yes if I find better ones I will add them.
There has to be some degree of common sense somewhere.

Abcmaxx (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As at the first AfD, the Eleven Sports Poland obituary posted by Interia, and Radio Eska (without clear attribution) is the only clear source of SIGCOV. The editor who re-created this article days after deletion has added another source (apparently copied over from another wiki): Encyklopedia piłkarska FUJI - kolekcja klubów, tom 8. My concern is nobody has access to this source, and it is unlikely that it contains SIGCOV on Olszyna. If someone does have access, I would greatly appreciate if they could paste anything covering him here. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norm. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 14:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly topic of interest in Polish football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much better state than at last AFD, although a big fat trout to Abcmaxx for creating an article after the last deletion, rather than seeking undeletion. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did go through undeletion, and this is a throughly different article since the last AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had to restore the page history, so you're talking nonsense. Giant Snowman 17:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, which sources do you think contribute to GNG? You called the obits "fairly brief pieces about his death" at the first AfD, and nothing was added from any new sources this time, so...? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 sources on the deleted version, 7 on this...? Giant Snowman 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources mentioned in the first AfD were the 90minut.pl obit, the club website, sport.pl, Radio Eska, and Interia Sport. That leaves the 90minut.pl stats site and Encyklopedia piłkarska FUJI, which no one appears to have access to (the statement it supports is actually from the Interia piece quoting FUJI, so zero additional information or sources have been made available from RS between the first and second AfDs). JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should re-read both discussions carefully. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying those sources weren't discussed at that AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the first AfD, and I can unequivocally state that JoelleJay is correct about six of the seven sources having been discussed at it. As I stated here before, the only new source is the Fuji encyclopedia entry which nobody except you has seen, and based on your description it is not SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that comment said "keep" and wanted those sources added to the article, whereas all the deletes did not say much at all; so it was discussed in favour of keeping the article not deleting as you're trying to infer here Abcmaxx (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. I participated in the discussion of each of those 6 sources and I absolutely did not !vote keep. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but you're making it exceedingly difficult. Jogurney (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The keep !vote that wanted to add sport.pl, eska.pl, and interia.pl was rebutted by delete-!voter @GiantSnowman as All look to be fairly brief pieces about his death. The next delete !vote said Sources above are not SIGCOV. And the final !vote agreed that there was a lack of in-depth coverage to meet NBIO.

Anyway, the point is that it is very puzzling that GS, having !voted to delete based on the initial 3 sources in the article and having reaffirmed his delete !vote when evaluating the 3 proposed sources as insignificant, would now !vote to keep based on a single source being added (supporting exclusively material already present in one of the 6 discussed sources) that no one here can even access and for which there is no evidence SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the comment by User:Das osmnezz which you happily ignored. But even your 1st comment was a neutral comment. Also people are allowed to change their minds. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? Is there some kind of language comprehension issue here? The comment by Das osmnezz is obviously what I have been referring to, as evidenced by reading the above comments: this subthread starts with me quoting directly from GS's response to it; you refer to it in response (adding the false claim that all the deletes did not say much at all); and I reply by directly referencing that !vote and rebutting your "deletes" assertion with the assessments of the three sources by GS and subsequent delete !voters. No one is contending that Das osmnezz didn't list those sources; the relevant fact is that three editors dismissed those sources, contributing to the consensus for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and User:Das osmnezz listed them in favour of keeping the articles, so not at all dismissed them. Besides this is not an extension of the 1st AfD so your comment is moot. Pinging the user in case wants to comment. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Is it not obvious that by referencing "the keep !vote who brought up those three sources" I am acknowledging there was a keep !voter who did not dismiss them? That still leaves three editors who did dismiss them, and a fourth editor who obviously disputed that the sole non-trivial source (interia.pl) was sufficient for GNG. And it absolutely is relevant because, as AfDs are supposed to be conducted based on the available sourcing, not the state of the article, it is incongruous for an editor to dismiss all the possible content that could be gleaned from a set of sources at one AfD and then to say the identical set suffices in another AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No additional significant coverage has been identified since the last AfD, so the article appears to fail WP:GNG. If as I noted above someone has access to the Fuji encyclopedia entries covering Olszyna (assuming it covers him at all), I'm willing to reconsider if they paste or summarize the contents. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not copy from another wiki nor made it up; I had access to it. When it was published it was easily found in all Polish bookshops for many, many years. It essentially has a paragraph about him in a mini-section, as it does for all capped Lech players in this volume. It essentially says exactly what it is attributed in the article. Anyhow, how can you possibly say the other sources are not significant here. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all that the Fuji encyclopedia says, it's not SIGCOV. As far as the obituaries, we already went through this in the last AfD: The club's press release isn't independent coverage; Radio Eska just published information taken from the club's press release (Jak informuje Lech Poznań w komunikacie....); the 90minut.pl obituary is very brief; which leaves the Eleven Sports Poland obituary (published by Interia) as the only SIGCOV available. The only small improvement over the article deleted by consensus is the addition of the Fuji source, and it doesn't get us where we need to be. Jogurney (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you have massively misunderstood WP:SIGCOV. As a reminder: "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. All the above mentioned sources are the main topic of the source material and no original research is needed to extract the content and none of it is just a trivial mention. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and you need to read the entirety of that section which includes this important piece: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. So the club's press release doesn't count towards notability whether its published by the club or an independent news outlet. Jogurney (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been affiliated with the club for 40 years, in no way this is advertising or a press release, but even not accepting that point, Radio Eska, Interia, and sport.pl are all unquestionably independent of the subject. By your logic any death announcement is not notable, which is just nonsense. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman. Like the last AfD, I already said the Eleven Sports Poland obit looks like SIGCOV. As we covered in the last AfD (and many others), sports organizations including clubs have a vested interest in promoting their athletes, coaches, etc., even long after those people have retired from serving the organization. It doesn't matter if a news organization publishes the press release, or if the sports organization posts it on its own website - both are not independent of the subject. Jogurney (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks like SIGCOV then it is SIGCOV isn’t it WP:DUCK. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? One piece of SIGCOV does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG, and a big waste of everyone's time.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Interia piece is decent, but more than one obituary by a journalist from Poznan in a sport-specific publication is necessary for GNG. A smattering of near-identical obituaries is not evidence of sustained SIGCOV, nor is anything from his former clubs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, and SPORTCRIT. Yeah, a lot hinges on prominent obituaries - because we don't have many (any?) archives of 1970s Polish media. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. In my opinion one piece of significant coverage should be enough for a topic like this; Olszyna played nearly 40 games in the top-flight league, so I think he's almost certain to have received coverage in the newspapers of his time, its just they're all offline and nearly impossible to find nowadays. When we've found at least one piece of SIGCOV I believe it is sufficient for notability in circumstances like this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this is a WP:IAR argument (ignore the GNG). If we look at Olszyna's career with a critical eye, I don't think it justifies an IAR argument. He averaged 12 league matches (out of 30) for three seasons and then played just 3 matches in the fourth season with a club (Lech) that finished in the bottom half every time (narrowly avoiding relegation once). He wasn't a regular starter, and his club didn't accomplish anything of note while he played for them. I don't think it's ever appropriate to ignore the GNG for a middling performer like this. Jogurney (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ignoring GNG is it though, your comment is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT by applying arbitrarily varying degrees of the same rule depending on personal opinion. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is complete nonsense. I've said the GNG should be met (consistent with NSPORTS2022). BeanieFan11 has indicated that GNG need not be met in this case. I'm disagreeing with BeanieFan11. Jogurney (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did he say that at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the coverage added after the first AFD is enough to pass WP:GNG. Not by flying colors, but enough that the page should not be deleted. Also, I recommend a big fat barnstar for Abcmaxx for WP:BOLDly creating an article after the last deletion rather than dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy in the refund process. Frank Anchor 12:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the one new source added since the last AfD (the Fuji encyclopedia entry) indicates the GNG has been met? Nobody except Abcmaxx has access to that source (and they haven't pasted it here), so it's really strange that multiple editors are viewing it as somehow overturning the clear consensus from the first AfD. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor, the coverage added after the first AfD is exclusively from the sources dismissed by consensus as trivial/not amounting to GNG at the first AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not true at all, I suggest you re-read the original, which by the way, is not that relevant given this is a new article. Stop bludgeoning other peoples votes. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What added material was not available from sources that were discussed in the prior AfD? The diff between the last version before deletion and your recreation contains content from the interia.pl piece (discussed at the AfD), content "sourced" to FUJI encyclopedia but also clearly entirely contained in the interia.pl article, a ref swap from his club to the Eska source (discussed at the AfD), and content sourced to sport.pl (discussed at the AfD). JoelleJay (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say was true, then the speedy delete would have applied, which it didn't, because as I sucessfully appealed it, the article got restored after wide consensus the aeticle is not the same. Thus AfD is not the same as the 1st and us not the same as the original article. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The speedy delete is only when article content is substantively similar, not when the underlying sources have been discussed and found lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Abcmaxx. Also the sources mentioned by Das osmnezz in the previous AFD were most certainly not dismissed by consensus as much of the delete voters did voted and commented before the sources were posted. They were disputed only by GiantSnowman who considered them to be "brief pieces about his death" followed by two generic "delete" votes that did not specifically refence anything. A relist would have probably been most appropriate at the time to further address these sources, but we are here now which is basically the same thing. Frank Anchor 12:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue specified (emph mine) Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything beyond stats and ROUTINE news which meets IS RS with SIGCOV showing N and pl.wp has no sources for them. Sources above are not SIGCOV. That is not a "generic delete !vote". Furthermore, the only substantive source referenced by Das osmnezz had already been discussed by Jogurney, who clearly disputed that there was enough for GNG, so that makes three participants who demonstrably engaged with that source and one more who AGF tells us also did. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay correctly summarizes the first AfD discussion of the sources presented by Das osmnezz. I didn't !vote in that AfD, but I clearly disputed the sufficiency of those sources. I find Abcmaxx's comment that the reversal of the speedy deletion of this article as somehow approving of his editing behavior deeply troubling. As GS noted above, Abcmaxx deserves a TROUT for disruptive editing. Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 19:14, 4 June 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.