Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheFinalBall


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

TheFinalBall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability in third-party sources. SLBedit (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two of its three references are two its own website. The third gives a global Alexa rank over 300,000 (surely not the world's largest football site, per claim?).  Can't find a single reference to "thefinalball" or "thefinalball.com" on any United Kingdom media outlet sites (including tv, newspaper, radio, other major football sites). Britishfinance (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't find anything online either, but there's a bunch of printed football related coverage that may not be visible. As this site is currently used as a reference by 4000 of en-wiki's pages, input from Football wikiproject members would be useful (will flag this there), and the AFD should be held open for at least another week. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see any evidence of notability. Number   5  7  11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Can't really see any third-party coverage of this, or its main variations ZeroZero or Ogol. Side note: The site shouldn't be used as a reference as it's data includes user-generated content (I'll raise this separately). However, the fact that a site is being used as a source on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable, per the consensus at Articles for deletion/CricketArchive. Nzd   (talk)  11:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:00, 12 February 2019 (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.