Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal poacher

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 Glossary of association football terms. Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goal poacher[edit]

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

It contains only one line of text and this page has more about it written than this page, and this is suppose to be the main article. Muur (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 25. Snotbot t • c » 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not even an article; it's barely sentence. - Mr X 02:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a source it could be one sentence in Association_football_positions, but still not its own article since it is just the definition of an expression. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already mentioned at Association football terminology, no need for a separate "article". Probably best not to merge to Association football positions, as a "goal poacher" isn't a position per se, more just a description of a player who has a particular style of play....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of association football terms as likely search term. Giant Snowman 08:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Snowman. --Dweller (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Snowman, seems the best move. AutomaticStrikeout 20:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lack of content mentioned by the nominator, this did at one time have more.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Giant Snowman. I'm not exactly sure why there's less content now than there was at the revision Phil mentioned, but I think that's moderately irrelevant. We have a dictionary definition here. Go Phightins! 02:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it used to be a real article [2], but in its current state it better to get rid of it. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2012 (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.