Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is apparently composed entirely of original research. It is not up to Wikipedia to identify goals that have been misattributed. – PeeJay 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: There is no original research, a clear reference is made to an authoritative publication while links to video clips on the net will be added periodically, particularly during the current World Cup, with quotes provided in many individual entries. Of course it is 'up to Wikipedia' to check that sources used – such as FIFA match reports – are accurate.  If people don't like the fact that FIFA match reports are often unreliable and that they have to check stuff for themselves, tough.  Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'. Mjefm (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that sentences such as "despite video showing", "sometimes listed as" and "did not appear to be" are clear references to authoritative publications. I would like to see external links and references to make sure this is not Original Research as PeeJay suggests. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'.: Quite the opposite, see WP:VNT -- Cycl o pia talk  17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete:total lack of clarity as to the distinction between inadvertent deflection and an own goal. Sometimes there is argument about the last touch: by that criterion half of all goals scored would be own goals by goalkeepers.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really a notable topic in its own right, and in its present state violates WP:OR. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - If it were properly referenced, it probably wouldn't be original research. However, I fail to see how this subject is independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see how this is notable, never mind the verifiability and OR issues. Probably also trivia. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Official FIFA reports might be inaccurate, but they're still official and we have to stick to them. If there are discrepancies with other authoritative sources, then simply point them out in the respective World Cup articles. — Luxic (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an indiscriminate collection of information. With no central source to collate said instances, and with most of them being pretty subjective, readers cannot trust that this subject is given a neutral treatment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per (almost) everyone.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete'. I like it, but it really is WP:OR. I'd suggest userification and no prejudice to recreation if entries show RS of actually having been disputed. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:30, 18 June 2010 (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.