Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers


 * 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 Merge. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Since FIFA does not officially publish the chart combine together from different confederations. Per No original research, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. So, this should be consider as "own analysis". Aleen f 1 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is currently OR, but just because FIFA doesn't publish the lists doesn't mean it can't be backed up by third party sources. I've read at least 2 newspapers that listed top goalscorers for the 2010 qualifiers, and there must be plenty of websites out there that do so as well. They can record it themselves simply by watching matches.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification, perhaps cropping the list to top 10 only.   A R  TYOM    15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Artyom. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as the data is published I don't see that it's OR simply because it's tabulated.  I agree that a merge into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification is appropriate to avoid accusations of cruft. This is the case for the individual federations (see 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)). --Deadly&forall;ssassin 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - I suggest reading the first line of WP:OR which encourages organizing material from existing sources, in direct contradiction to the claim of the original nominator. Neier (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.