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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KS Mewa Gniew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfC guidance was that this article likely wouldn't survive an AfD and yet it was placed in mainspace all the same by its author. That's a shame, because I concur with the AfC comments - the club has heritage, but it plays in the seventh league with a ground capacity of 300. The coverage is mostly database entries, there is no national coverage from RS at all. With a mildly heavy heart, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Poland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the advice about how to improve the page I added more information with references to news articles. Are you suggesting I specifically need to reference national rather than local or regional newspaper articles? Thanks. Wikociewie (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National would be helpful, regional too. Or books, magazines. The databases aren't good enough to prove notability (while they can be used to source statements in the article, of course). Passing WP:GNG is the main issue IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I've managed to meet GNG. I've added references including two national newspapers, four local + regional newspapers, and a magazine. When I initially drafted the entry on Mewa Gniew I looked up equivalent sized teams on Wikipedia and judged the content based on them - now I believe it's been improved beyond many comparable entries. If you have any more comments/suggestions please let me know and I'll try to continue improving the article! Wikociewie (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify It's close to demonstrating notability IMO - there's at least one newspaper article in there which arguably passes GNG (it's short though but discusses ground development) and it just needs a couple more to get over the line - anything which clearly shows the club receives a level of newspaper coverage. We have articles on similarly sized English clubs which clearly get GNG coverage, so its small size shouldn't be a disqualifier, and considering it was just in draft space moving it back there is an easy option. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Should also note that if no more coverage exists, then it's not quite eligible per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak Keep I think the additional sources get it over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the added newspaper references I think it demonstrates notability and should be kept. Keithec (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Klasa A. Club itself doesn't appear to meet GNG, could be a brief part of the Klasa A article, which seems to have a bit more coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep A Polish club that is over 60 years old will have some coverage, however this is a very small club. The essence for an article is there within some of the sources however they could be improved. It's also possible there are historic sources for the club which haven't been picked up on. Nevertheless a couple of the article sources have some merit, but it's not the best. The above comment to merge the article... Well, why would you merge an article to the league page? Certainly when a football club could change to a different league at any given season. Merging there is completely out of the question for this article. If anything, a part merge and redirect to Gniew would be the smart choice. The town article has no sports section on it and the football club could easily be added to that. Govvy (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @SportingFlyer:, Many new sources added to article. Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per what, exactly? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly passes GNG with new references.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Addressing the original concerns the article now has references to national, local and regional publications rather than just relying on databases. As previous people have commented the humble size of the club's stadium should not be grounds to delete. If there was a consensus to merge the article then I'd be happy to do so into the entry for Gniew (the other suggested merge is into an article purely containing the same database references this article was originally flagged up for). Anyway I think the article now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikociewie (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The added sources have shown more notability. There's also reason to suspect more is out there due to this club existing pre-internet.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:34, 29 July 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.