Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A list with no sources other than the IFFHS, a barely notable statistics association. ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep because the IFFHS appears in over 6.5 million web pages on Google and 1,050 printed publications . It appears to have been founded in the early 1980s. So, saying it is barely notable seems ridiculous to me.&mdash;Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Close per WP:DEL-REASON and WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes the IFFHS is a notable organisation; however this does not mean that this particualr article is, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot find any evidence this list meets WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the IFFHS may be notable, but that does not make every list they publish inherently automatically notable. There is no evidence that this poll/list got any media coverage in its own right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The list doesn't appear to have much media coverage of its own.  JoeGazz84  ♦ 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete after some thought. This article is nothing more than the presentation of a series of lists published by an independent organisation on their website. The copyright status of these lists is not clear to me but there is certainly no attempt at critical analysis in this article (nor does it seem possible, given the general lack of independent sources referring to the subject). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:01, 22 May 2012 (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.