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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Football Awards[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with their first edit (interesting...); no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These "awards" are pure popularity contests, decided by votes from fans. There is no notability in this type of award. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 14:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think winning one of these means much, but it passes WP:GNG per the sources on the article, and here are a few more [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. These are all national sources, The Mirror, The Independant, ESPN, and the Evening Standard. There is much more in not as well known sources and publications. I think this is easily a notable topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: - where is the significant coverage of the awards themselves (as required by WP:GNG), not just run-of-the-mill reporting about a winner? Giant Snowman 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror cover the award extensively, they have about 20 articles around it. Here are some more, from them and from others, more centered on the actual award. [7] [8] [9] [10] (Number 10 is probably the best, but its not a particularly well known source). AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror organises the awards, of course they give it loads of coverage. Not many of what you are suggesting are reliable, and none are "significant". Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it can be compared to Globe Soccer Awards, there somewhat the same type and referenced the same way, while facebook is known very well for sports. User:Khalid sadeq Khalid sadeq 02:15, 28 December 2016 (KSA)
Delete - Fan vote, not notable. Kante4 (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have had publicity in a number of media sources (e.g. being shown live on BT Sport). The fact it is voted for by fans is irrelevant. Many notable awards in other professional sports are based on public votes (e.g. many players in each Major League Baseball All-Star Game are elected). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It meets the criteria for notability. The Mirror covers this story because it organize the awards, sure. Fans are voting, sure. However, neither of those two points deny its notability.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (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.