Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccerhub (website)


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Soccerhub (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable website, no independent coverage whatsoever, fails WP:NWEB Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing here even hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin. If there was a relevant speedy category, this would be an obvious speedy deletion candidate.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  17:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * delete no notability, trash sources, and the user just wouldn't leave it in draft, so it gets assessed with main ns criteria. — billinghurst  sDrewth  20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above (I'm assuming that moving it back to draft is no longer an option) Spiderone  21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your time, I'm just fustrated about the article, and am sure one of you might have being at this stage where you believe an article should be in the namespace just based on you where as it's not notable enough to be in the mainspace, I will just like the article to be in draft space for other editors to work on it then send it through afc process I promise not to move it. You can also remove the bad links I promise not to add them again. Thanks all for keeping Wikipedia safe. Stay safe guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that am protecting this article, but there are many articles here on wiki that doesn't even meet the notability guidelines, no reference whatsoever, some only link to the official website and maybe some directory listing and they were on the mainspace, I can name few if you ask. Lynndonald (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There will always be some that slip under the radar. You can help by either adding sources to them or, if sources can't be found, putting them up for deletion. Unsourced or poorly sourced articles existing in mainspace is never a good reason for creating another poorly sourced article. Spiderone  23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. -- Devoke water  (talk)  12:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dont Delete I think sitejaber is notable, any non reliable reference should also be removed, so crunchbase is also a reliable website, but as per all other opinion I might change my mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.45.101 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2020 (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.