Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goals Soccer Centers

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 of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goals Soccer Centers moved to Goals Soccer Centres

Article on one not particularly notable 5-a-side football (soccer) organisation in the UK; reads like a website for the organisation Daveb 04:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Real organization, with facilities in 18 cities in the UK according to their website. Needs a cleanup. Should be moved to Goals Soccer Centres. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable enough in the UK. Calsicol 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate, however in this case I'd argue they ARE notable anyhow. The company exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your repeated spamming of this untruth across Wikipedia, NN is very much official policy, as indicated at WP:CSD. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Whose spamming? I have a point of view. That point of view is that notability is not official policy, which is why I vote to keep things that are said to be non notable. I'm supposed to vote "Keep" without stating why? The reason happens to be the same, as I seek out so called non notable articles up for deletion. By the way, I cant see anything at WP:CSD that says anything about notability. However at Wikipedia:Biography it states quiet clearly that notability is a guideline not official policy.Jcuk 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know it is not an official policy, but let me ask you something. Do you think that verifiability is the only acceptable standard for inclusion in Wikipedia? What if I want to write an article on my PC, or on my left toe, or on that day I went to the zoo when I was 8? Articles on these topics could be verifiable, but would they belong here? JoaoRicardo^talk 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, as there are accepted ways of verifying something, for example does it have X number of hits on Google. Therefor, whilst Iron Maiden would have multiple hits, Freddie and the Flintstones, who have had one practice session in Freddie's dad's garage would have no hits. Or maybe one if they had the nouse to write a website, but that would not count as verification. Jcuk 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Significantly notable in England and Scotland. The person who listed this article for deletion is located in Wales, thus isn't aware of its notability in England and Scotland and has failed to research into the matter. EnglishRose 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - That was indeed me, thanks for the info JoaoRicardo. Englishrose 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Previous vote is actually by User:Englishrose. Please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And remember that the wiki software is case sensitive. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:37, 20 December 2005 (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.