Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beautiful Game (football podcast)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Beautiful Game (football podcast)


Bump from speedy. Neutral. Talk page asserts notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 09:29Z 
 * Delete as per WP:WEB. One mention in a "Top 10" chart in Metro is not enough; for starters Metro is a freesheet not a paid-for newspaper, and a top 10 chart counts as merely "Trivial Coverage" as laid out in criterion #1 in WP:WEB. Qwghlm 09:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 09:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete- what difference does Metro being a free-sheet make? Wikipedia is free. The Metro has a higher circulation than most-paid for newspapers. The article about The Beautiful Game podcast does not constitute advertising or promoting of the podcast, it is informative and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleggy (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Ter e nce Ong 10:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. – Elisson • T • C • 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see nothing notable here. aLii 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Come on, no matter about Metro is a paper or a newspaper, the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it?? we can keep it for a few months, if it has not edited later, it can be deleted... Rakuten06 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources that podcast meets criteria outlined WP:WEB. As for "the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it??"... indeed, that's precisely a reason to delete it. Maybe when someone else considers it notable and ample secondary sources are available for an article, then it can come back. Until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- Kinu t /c  22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:V and WP:RS not met. No established notability. Also, for those saying "the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it", please read WP:NOT. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No Delete. I have reformatted the article to make understanding much clearer but references and further details must be added. -- C r y z a l  07:13, 24 December 2006 (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.