Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty kicks


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mighty kicks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a non-notable (I couldn't find any reliable sources) article about a soccer program, bordering on advertising. The PROD was removed by the page creator. David 1217 02:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree, it looks purely promotional. Michaelmas1957 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable and WP:NOTPROMOTION--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 June 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; 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a soccer program that visits different schools and is growing fast and should be known. It is very similar program to Soccer Shots, which has no proposal for deletion. What would be a way to improve the article to avoid it being deleted. I want it to be an encyclopedia article, and not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodpatrick (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be purely promotional. No indication of notability, regardless. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Author appears to be using Wikipedia as means of advertisng Finnegas (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons Soccer Shots Franchising, LLC isn't up for deletion, and your article is. The first is that Soccer Shots demonstrates notability by adding citations to reliable sources. The other is that Soccer Shots is written from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic tone, and is not advertising. If you can fix the problems outlined here, then people will most likely establish a consensus to keep the article. Did that answer your question? David 1217 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No WP:RS, like an advert and no trace of WP:N.  →TSU tp* 17:37, 13 June 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.