Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FootGoal.pro


 * 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. North America1000 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

FootGoal.pro

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable website Mooonswimmer 17:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Websites.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional article, and literally none of the sources even mention the website. Merko (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, there are some more sources that I haven't added here yet. I have added one more that clearly mentions the website. Though the added sources are not a lot, but there are no promotional articles. SuccessfullWorld 08:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, preferably speedily, as having also assessed the citations prior to noticing Merko's comment above, I also observed that the sources do not mention the website and certainly do not corroborate the prose. I don't know if this would fall under WP:CSD, as it's very clearly WP:PROMO with what I consider an effort to deceive with non-relevant sources making it appear more notable than it is. Also, says est in 2022 but infobox says 2020? There is too much not right about this that it can't be kept. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support a speedy deletion for this. Merko (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'll mention again, maybe there not a lot of sources mentioning the website (some not added yet). But I created this because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do. SuccessfullWorld 08:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
 * Even if it gets mentioned 'somewhere', the sources must be reliable and provide significant coverage outside a trivial mention. Is it possible to provide WP:THREE such sources? A Google News publication page isn't one. Please check out WP:GNG and WP:NWEBSITE. Merko (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * where is it directly mentioned? I can't see it QiuLiming1 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was founded in 2020 and the 2022 was written mistakenly. It's already fixed. If you check the website, you'll see that it's live since 2020. SuccessfullWorld 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There were also added some news sites mentioning the site. Does it count? SuccessfullWorld 09:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
 * Added sources merely cite FootGoal.pro in one sentence, this does not establish notability, and those sources themselves aren't exactly reliable. Merko (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles. Does not pass GNG.Samanthany (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I mentioned in another comment, I thought this website deserves to be in Wikipedia because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do.
 * Besides, I have made some changes and added more sources. SuccessfullWorld 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - only trivial mentions available. Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. The former then goes on to say Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Since there is no in-depth information about this website from independent sources, it must go. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I mentioned in another comment, I thought this website deserves to be in Wikipedia because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do.
 * More sources were added mentioning the website, but some were deleted from the page. Besides, website's articles are widely shared by other websites and used as a source even by Forbes. SuccessfullWorld 10:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:53, 5 June 2022 (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.