Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Women's World Cup milestone goals

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. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Women's World Cup milestone goals[edit]

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

Random listcruft. I can't see that this is a topic of any notability; the numbers ending in a pair of zeros are essentially a random selection set. PROD removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument citing FIFA World Cup milestone goals, which IMO also should go in the dumper. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree it's a random selection set as it has assigned meaning; scoring the 100th or 500th goal is a "milestone" as opposed to the 337th goal. Just like getting dealt a king and an ace has meaning even though it's just as random as getting a 3 and a 4. As the events are quadrennial, these numbers are not as fluid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, arbtrary not random. Why not select (eg) prime numbers as the criterion for a selection set. Just as uninteresting.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. (And delete FIFA World Cup milestone goals if anyone nominates that, too.) There isn't anything special about the X-hundredth goal in a competition, any more than a list of the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. Olympic gold medal awarded, or the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. run scored in the World Series, or the 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. goal in the Stanley Cup playoffs. If getting dealt a king and ace has meaning that a 3 and 4 does not, it's because the player is more likely to win the card game being played with the king and ace, because the rules of that game give them more value, but the 700th goal in tournament history will have no more value to the team that scores it than if it had been the 699th goal or the 701st. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I added the Men's list to the nomination because everyone !voting delete have mentioned that they want the other list to be deleted and I agree that it is a both or nothing deal. If the women's list is (x), then the men's list is too. What it boils down to is WP:NOTSTAT. Tavix | Talk 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, pure OR. Giant Snowman 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I'd agree with User:Tavix, if this article goes the similat article on men's kick the ball should go.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if you defined what milestone goals are with citations, the notability of both articles would be clearer and less likely to be included in discussions like these. Hmlarson (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clearly OR. Nothing to indicate notability of this set of goals. mikeman67 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (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.