Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. The discussion below suggests that although the current article in discussion is about the same topic as the article deleted last year, the actual content and sourcing are substantially different. I have verified this indeed by looking at the deleted page history. In light of changes to circumstances since the previous deletion, CSD G4 does not apply. There is a clear split of opinion of whether the article satisfies inclusion guidelines, so I'm closing this as NC default to keep. Deryck C. 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like the same list that was deleted at Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper. No analysis, primary sources -- just a copy of a couple of lists on the IFFHS website. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Acticle was updated. Reliable sources were added. Easy passes WP:GNG. 11 interwikies. Otherwise AfD is not a substitution for cleanup. NickSt (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - not much has changed since the last AfD - the organisation is notable, this particular award is not. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why this award is not notable? There are many reliable secondary sources: (Goal.com) (Football Italia) (Buenos Aires Herald) and so on. NickSt (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not feel it is "significant" coverage - at most this should be redirect to the main IFFHS article. GiantSnowman 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG: It need not be the main topic of the source material. You can see many refs in the article. Significance is enough. NickSt (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:NFOOTBALL does not specify about football awards (which is what the article is about) so GNG should be followed here. There appears to be sufficient sources to fulfill it so the article should remain. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - per WP:CSD. The article has not changed sufficiently since the last afd, which was subsequently endorsed by DRV. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Protest. First AfD was for another (not my) article without sources. It is not a repost. It is a new article with new good sources. Many interwikies. Was added reliable sources. Was deleted unneeded information. NickSt (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not your article - see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And what? Of course, not my, but I rewrited this article for showing WP:GNG. And see WP:PERSONAL. NickSt (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you say it is "my article" - that implies OWNership. Raising that point is not a personal attack in the slightest. GiantSnowman 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss about article, not personality. Why do you want to delete the article with 11 interwikies and many reliable sources? NickSt (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Number of interwikies? Not relevant in the slightest. Reliable sources? Does not mean it is notable. GiantSnowman 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See other football awards. Not each award (very few numbers) has such press coverage as this. It is a main football award for goalkeepers. For example, The Guardian reporter mentions this award many years after polling. . NickSt (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. But if this article will be deleted due to WP:GNG, we must delete all articles from this category. NickSt (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we won't - we'll only have to delete those that actually fail GNG. GiantSnowman 12:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Fail GNG with such number of secondary sources?! Then I don't understand GNG. Or you. NickSt (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of sources, but their significance. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism (i.e. not significant) and are about the individual players who have won the award as opposed to the award itself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you don't wait to see info about this award in political journalism. I am also. Of cource, sports sources are present for sports award. NickSt (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have 100 sources about something, but if they are basic and do not cover the subject in any great depth then they are worthless and would not meet GNG. GiantSnowman 13:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See Category:Association football trophies and awards. Show me the article with more significant coverage (with exception of the Golden Ball, or course). NickSt (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! GiantSnowman 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unconstructive. Show me example of the similar article with not basic sources and which cover the subject in any great depth in your opinion. I want to look for. NickSt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Try the Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) or FIFA Ballon d'Or. Receive plenty of coverage, yea-after-year - this does not. GiantSnowman 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly: (with exception of the Golden Ball, or course). Maybe Footballer of the Year – Israel or Estonian Silverball? Or other items from . Tell me please your opinion, what articles from this category we must delete, and what to keep. And why? NickSt (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, for God's sake, please understand - other articles existing and potentially being non-notable does NOT mean that this article is notable! GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Giant, of course, I understand it. But I write such articles and I need to understand what sport awards are notable and what is not. Give me answer to my question: What articles from this category we must delete, and what to keep. And why? NickSt (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt per last discussion, particularly pertinent the comment "nothing more than the presentation of a series of lists published by an independent organisation on their website" by user Suriel1981. I should add that per WP:GNG "coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". C 679 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD was for another article. That article was only big voting lists copypasted by the anonym without secondary sources. It is not a repost. It is a new article with new good reliable sources. See carefully sources in the new version. NickSt (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD was for a topic on the same subject, as we can see from the title of the deletion discussion. The article in its current state is without doubt two lists with the added prose that it is awarded every January. The fact that The Guardian give it a trivial mention and the Buenos Aires Herald have reported the winner in one year does little more than corroborate the most recent winner and establish no basis for an article here. C 679 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a main award for goalkeepers in the world. Tomorrow I will write another article about sports awards and you will say "not notable". Give me the explanation of the borders between notable and non-notable sports awards from Category:Association football trophies and awards. We must delete Czech Footballer of the Year? Or other items from ? Or not? NickSt (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to explain notability to you; the onus is on anyone proposing to keep an article to establish its notability. The fact you removed the speedy deletion tag from the article seven times would suggest you feel the article would be deleted should you not intervene. Clearly the arguments for deleting the article, including G4, speak for themselves, so it would appear there is no need for further comment. C 679  17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the previous AfD was on the exact same (non-notable) subject. GiantSnowman 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, previous AfD was for another big voting list without secondary sources. Now such sources are present in the article. Goal.com, Buenos Aires Herald, The Guardian, Bleacher Report, Real Madrid website, RSSSF and so on. NickSt (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:STICK. GiantSnowman 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was canvassed for my opinion here, along with others who expressed a keep opinion at another AfD. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, not notable.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt but Oppose G4 - G4'ing this is just going to buy us more time-wasting pain when such a deletion inevitably ends up at WP:DRV. There are "sources" where previously none existed which calls into question any suggestion that the article is "sufficiently identical and unimproved". We should debate the validity of those sources here, sure, but I don't think G4 is a good idea. On the article itself, a simplified list article - winners of the ... - might serve to support the parent article in a functional sense, with the award itself explained in the parent organisation article. But an article about the award itself doesn't seem justified. That is, without substantially improved sources. Most of them seem to be coverage of individuals who have won the award in question. There are plenty of notable organisations that give awards to notable people. The organisations are notable, the people are notable but the awards aren't really notable in their own right, in my opinion, unless they have received significant coverage in their own right. Stalwart 111  22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It did end up in DRV 34 days ago: Deletion review/Log/2013 January 1. Considering the article is identical and the DRV, I think this is a textbook CSD#G4. Mkdw talk 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, was aware of that DRV (I commented there, too) which is what I was getting at (in a round-about way) with my suggestion that certain people might have an appetite for running to DRV if it is G4'd. Better to build a solid consensus (I thought) and be done with it (including seasoning). It seems all too easy to claim "sufficient difference" (despite admin confirmation of similarity/sameness) in cases where there "'might" be some and such an excercise would be a massive waste of time. I was willing to AGF and supported userfication/recreation but it seems my faith was misplaced. To be clear, my opposition to G4 is not on the basis that I think the article should be kept instead; rather that I think it might allow a way back in and I would rather see this done with. Stalwart 111  04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete While the first AfD was 8 months ago, the DRV at Deletion review/Log/2013 January 1 is 34 days old. Immediately deletion under CSD#G4. Admin confirms article is a duplicate of the first AfD. No comment since CSD was opposed. Mkdw talk 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've declined the request for a speedy deletion because I think the addition of sources, plus pruning and other changes, means this is not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the old article. The AfD should proceed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - for me, this one's a no-brainer. The sources listed in the references section alone are enough the satisfy the general notability guideline, especially as its being covered by outlets as diverse as the Bleacher Report, the Buenos Aires Herald, Real Madrid and The Guardian. Naturally, these sources are reporting about who won the award - that's the nature of the beast as far as most sports awards go. Is it any different to coverage received by, say, the PFA Players' Player of the Year? ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Bald Zebra is one of three users, alongside User:Keresaspa and User:Oldelpaso   who were targeted in a votestacking campaign by the author of the article, having !voted "Keep" at a similar AfD created as part of this disruption. This behaviour is being discussed at WP:ANI. C 679  08:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, he was canvassed, but the message itself was fairly neutral - it was the "invite list" (the keep voters) that is of concern, right? He also wasn't notified of the ANI thread as far as I can see. It's quite possible he didn't know he was being canvassed. Agree it's poor form, but possibly not on Zebra's part. Yeah? Stalwart 111  08:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no suggestion Bald Zebra has acted inappropriately. The concern is that he was canvassed alongside the other two users who !voted "keep" in the other AfD (I think this is what you mean by the "invite list") and I think it's worthwhile to note that here. C 679 08:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For sure! Just didn't want anyone to misinterpret said worthwhile note (formatted as a comment after Zebra's !vote) as a criticism of Zebra, which didn't seem the intention. All good! Stalwart 111  09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of those references are notes of somebody receiving the award. Do any of them constitute "subtanstial coverage" of the award itself? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a single above delete vote has a valuable rational attached to it. The opinion of lack of notablility was dismissed through sourcing and the appeals to authority are meaningless. There are many other similar sporting awards with articles, and as the essay WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". Being that there is no reason to delete this article, I suggest it not be deleted. Sepsis II (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, it should be consistent but (as has been pointed out) a number of the other awards pointed to may also be candidates for deletion. It's not a strong argument to say that this article should be retained because other similar subjects of questionable notability have articles. OSE remains an argument to avoid during deletion discussions for that very reason. A number of people have already stated that, in their opinion, the subject does not meet WP:GNG - that about as policy-based an argument as you're going to get. The WP:BURDEN is on content creators and those supporting retention to explain (in a way that builds WP:CONSENSUS) how the subject is notable. Stalwart 111  00:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Eh, I'd say it has some notability as seen by the variety of sources, though really, this AfD is only about whether this award deserves its own page as if deleted the information will re-appear in the mother organization's article. Can I ask that someone make all the tables on the IFFHS's page collapsed? If all the tables are collapsed perhaps length wouldn't be an issue and a redirect to the re-created subsection could be agreeable to all? Sepsis II (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also true. And as I said in my original note above - this might have been better as a list of people who have won the award, rather than an article about the award, with content about the award itself on the parent page. Not sure if a collapsed list would be WP:MOS-compliant but it seems like a sensible idea on the face of it. Stalwart 111  02:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep appropriate list article, which also exists in many other languages. Sufficient independent sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2013 (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.