Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Goal


 * 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. If certain sections need removing, remember what Wikipedia is (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!) and DIY! Neil ( ► ) 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No Goal
Dictionary definition? I honestly don't really know how to label this one, but I feel that there's absolutely no reason to give this its own page. fuzzy510 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - doesn't look like a dictionary definition to me. --Haemo 07:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs to be expanded to explain why goals are disallowed in each of the sports, and it could become a perfectly informative article. Elrith 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not a dicdef, and has potential. Hut 8.5 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a dictionary definition- it's a pretty specific call in multiple sports that tends to generate controversy. Failing that, it's at least notable in the hockey world for the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals.
 * Weak delete as the type of goals differ from sport to sport and are better handled at each individual sport. JJL 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- not a pure dictionary definition, and potential to expand to other sports. Thunderwing 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic should be covered at the sport's page of each sport. There is no real reason to have an article about this. Dixonsej 17:28, 23 May 2007
 * Keep - its place with reference to the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals is comparable to Wide Right. Js farrar 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dixonsej. A call of "not a goal" is not notable in any sport in which goals are scored, unless your team is on the losing end of that call. If we allow this we'll next be arguing about "no foul" on controversial pass interference calls in the end zone in American football or on apparent fouls in the area in soccer. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep something. Perhaps move the article to No goal and discuss the call as it relates to each sport (per Elrith), or perhaps make seperate articles for the term in each sport (per Dixonsej). Or perhaps expand the article to discuss in depth and with proper sources the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals incident (per Js farrar).  I'd also like to point out to BPMullins that we do have an article on Pass interference. Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I would argue, however, that the dic-def that starts the article be removed and that only the phenomenon of the Buffalo Sabres 1999-2000 No Goal be kept. See also Wide Right (Buffalo Bills), and Immaculate Reception for articles dealing with extraordinary plays in a sporting event. --Cjs56 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the dic def section of the article. As already mentioned this is better dealt with within the articles of the various sports that use the term. Create a new article for the Buffalo Sabres incident, if it is shown to be notable and sourced, under a more specific name rather than a generic term (the use of the generic term rather than a 'snappy' phrase does make me doubt the notability). Nuttah68 12:13, 28 May 2007 (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.