Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFL Goal of the Year

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 redirect to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present). Sandstein 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFL Goal of the Year[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Have now added these pages to the deletion pool for the same reason.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consider bundling the 2007, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 editions into this nomination, as they have similar amounts of independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 09:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point as I was only doing 2019 as the 2018 link wasn't there @Teratix:. HawkAussie (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sole-sourced to the league's website, no evidence of secondary coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to write a more considered !vote before this is closed, but I did find a couple of bits of independent coverage 1, 2. Not sure if this will be enough. – Teratix ₵ 01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect all to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present). I don't see indication the individual years are particularly notable, most of the coverage is in relatively local publications and is news articles that don't indicate a lasting importance of each year. The main case to be made is that the winners are worth mentioning, and they are already listed at the main article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2016, 2017 and 2019, Redirect the rest to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present), the individual years have received coverage in secondary sources, as can be seen here: [1] [2] [3] all of that is for 2019, you can also easily find coverage for earlier years, such as [4] for 2017, [5] for 2016, from just a minutes search. However, coverage of this award before 2016 is lacking, before then most of the coverage is based around the AFL Mark of the Year, meaning those should be redirected. Bundling these was probably a mistake. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Goal of the Year (AFL)#Official winners (2001–present), as valid search terms. I would ordinarily consider post-2012 AFL.com.au sufficiently independent of the league to count toward meeting the GNG, but since the site hosts and promotes the voting for the competition it is not independent here. There is some coverage on club websites, but not wholly independent and mostly along the lines of "vote for our player!" The only truly independent, substantial piece I found is from The Age, but it is fairly short, and I can't find any other acceptable sources (the ones mentioned by Devonian Wombat either do not mention the award or do so only briefly). The fact that only certain years have individual pages is a massive red flag that the award is not receiving sufficient independent coverage.

Full deletion would be an inferior outcome: the titles are probable search terms, and the page history is worth preserving on the off-chance sufficient independent coverage emerges. Partial redirection, as advanced by Devonian Wombat, is no better; the 2016, 2017 and 2019 awards were not somehow more significant or noteworthy than their predecessors. (It is more likely that coverage of preceding awards is no longer available online). Additionally, the inconsistency would only serve to create new debates over whether future awards deserve pages, and editors unaware of this discussion may simply recreate the missing pre-2016 articles. – Teratix ₵ 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy if this redirected instead of delete. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.