Božo Broketa: BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Failed V, 404 ::  1.  "Božo Broketa".  Croatian Olympic Committee.  9 May 2017.  Retrieved 14 September 2017.  Database style page ::  2. ^ Profile - AFC-Ajax.info Failed V, no info on subject ::  3. ^ Grad Dubrovnik povećao davanja sportu za osam posto Database style page ::  4. ^ "Player Database".  EU-football.  Retrieved 25 June 2022.  Database style page ::  5. ^ "Božo Broketa".  Olympedia.  Retrieved 13 October 2021.  Fails SIGCOV, brief mention, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: "Božo Broketa", Football Lexicon , Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute.  Zagreb, 2004.  BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick google search finds e.g. https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/tag/bozo-broketa where Slobodna Dalmacija documented fans commemorating the 100 years of his birth and provided a biography.  That's a clear potential for WP:SIGCOV .  Did your WP:BEFORE investigation just ignore all non-English sources?  -- Joy ( talk ) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Croatia ,  and Yugoslavia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These deletion nominations of clear topics of interest are getting ridiculous, especially from this user ( User:TimothyBlue ), - yet another deletion nomination from a user whose most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online...  (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever ).  What makes these nominations more ridiculous is that I easily found [91] , [92] , [93] , and [94] , and these are just the sources published recently about a 1950s player (which shows his significance in Yugoslavia) not to mention the many offline sources and the fact that he has a football school named after him .  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I feel he passes WP:GNG with these WP:THREE sources [95] [96] [97] Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets GNG per above sources.  I don't understand why you're going after the historic players who were actually among the best players of their time, rather than the one-sentence zero/one-source stubs on modern players who had little impact.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This nomination is a waste of editor time; article satisfies WP:GNG particularly through the in-depth piece from Slobodna Dalmacija as well as the dulist.hr piece.  I'm also confused by the nominator's evaluation of Miroslav Krleža's Nogometni Leksikon entry; it is not just a brief mention in a statistics database but rather a paragraph summarizing his career which helps count towards SIGCOV.  Jogurney ( talk ) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG, and horrible BEFORE by nominator. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 17:58, 11 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.

Discussion outcome: keep