Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal of the Month (England)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Goal of the Month (England)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not-notable non-award. Not discussed in reliable sources. Sandman888 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep due to nominator's false rationale, as it's "discussed" by a number of reliable sources, including the The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Scotsman, Daily Express, The Times, etc, after a one-second Google search. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The award is also noted in many reliable sources per this search including publication by Tottenham Hotspur F.C.'s official site, the Manchester Evening News, Daily Mail and more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." which is what is meant by "discussed", something a "one-second Google search" [sic!] cannot determine. Sandman888 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so keep, per the links those sources provide and per the content the of the links. (And a reminder of your own deletion "rationale" - "not discussed in reliable sources" - clearly false).  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I would be inclined to think that this is probably notable, but I can't find as much in-depth coverage as I would expect. Its 83 Google News and Google News Archive results appear to come from 80 passing mentions and three proper stories  . Maybe just enough to meet WP:GNG, but marginal at best. One thing I would say is that verifiability isn't an issue, as the individual goals all seem to be discussed in the passing mentions. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - just about meets WP:GNG; article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a worthy article.--EchetusXe 10:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, as lacking significant independent coverage Pretty Green (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - independent coverage not significant enough to show notability beyond BBC's Match of the Day (of which it is a segment).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2011 (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.