Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The clearance goal

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 Alexf^(talk) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clearance goal[edit]

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

Note: deletion notice added to the article by 129.11.76.229 (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses a controversial Premier League goal that occurred recently and has added to the controversy over Referre Stuart Attwell and his competence to officiate. An individual apparently not only nominated this for deletion but also continues to edit the article on Mr. Attwell to remove any criticism. He also criticizes this for having no references when it occurred less than two hours ago. It is a current event that is getting much discussion board attention, as well as special coverage by BBC sport. Whoever it is that proposed this for deletion does not even have an indivudual account, but simply hides behind the Leeds University library interface. If this person cannot even stand up and defend their work and be accountable for their edits, they should at the very least not be listened to. Check his talk page and there is a long history of abuse, vandalism and questionable edits present. This article discusses an event in the Premier League that is certainly being discussed elsewhere. All this person could do when I asked him to stop wiki stalking the article on Stuart Attwell was to insult me and threaten me with blocking. This article needs to stand and people who hide behind their edits without having the courtesy, or courage, of even being bothered to register as a user need not be listened to. The Moody Blue 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Controversial goals happen all the time. Some get more coverage than others, and some mention in another appropriate article may be possible (such as the Stuart Attwell article in this case), but controversial goals are not notable on their own.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete some fan whining about whether a goal was legal or not a few hours after the game is scarcely worth even arguing about. if this goal goes down in the annals of footballing history then we can maybe mention in a relevant article - but as a standalone I call WP:SNOW on this. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - not notable (many many controversial goals), original research, verbosely abusive editor. 129.11.77.197 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noatble. --TitanOne (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS describes this situation pretty clearly: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". At the moment all we have is routine news reporting of this mildly controversial incident. If it gains substantial long-term coverage in the future then that will be the time to create an article with proper historical perspective. I would add that as a Watford supporter who was in the Rookery End when this "goal" was scored I am certainly no fan of Stuart Attwell, but there's no need to create a separate article about each of his perceived mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR, WP:POV - need I go on? Giant Snowman 14:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phil has this one correct, I think; there's no need for an article on each controversial goal. If the referee has a history of such calls, and if media coverage has explored this fact, then noting such in the referee's article (in a neutral and BLP-friendly way) may be in order. If the controversy itself generates press, or if the goal causes an official review of officiating practices or rules changes, then maybe this would merit a mention in that context. But no, there is no need for this article as it stands. There's a bit of OR as well, at the end. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered in perfectly adequate detail in the ref's own article, absolutely does not need an article of its own. Do not merge or redirect, as "the clearance goal" seems an unlikely redirect, especially given that hardly anyone even seems to be calling it that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doubt this will merit more than a ten second mention in a SKY end of season review next May, if that. Lasting notability - no.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I were were in charge, no article on a new event could be created for several months except where demand for such is clear and obvious: this sort of knee jerk "something happened, I must create an article" is of no service to an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. An event with no evidence of lasting coverage or impact. I'm half tempted to say we should speedy as an attack page, as this serves little purpose other than having a go at Stuart Attwell. And don't merge anything, his article is already unbalanced enough. Oh, and one of the sources is a Wikipedia mirror. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point about Attwell's article, I think the criticism is given too much weight. See Talk:Stuart Attwell#Unbalanced for some thoughts on the matter. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (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.