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. Even if one discounts the multiple "it's notable" assertions, there's no consensus about whether to delete the article. Sandstein 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest goals in association football[edit]

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

Most of these goals are sourced to Youtube, and how on earth do you even measure goal time to the nearest 1/100th of a second? The numbers therefore are just made up by sources, and there's no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria for which matches are counted by this list. Joseph2302 19:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Also, if this were notable, there would be some official record of it, for example FIFA would have a list of fastest goals using some properly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Joseph2302 21:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sourced reliably and in my opinion is just WP:Listcruft. --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not reliably sourced. Without any sort of official record-keeping by FIFA, this is reduced to pure trivia. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while youtube is usually not a reliable source not all the sources are from there, the article content itself is rather notable in my opinion. Fast goals get a lot of attention in football. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable topic. It's one for trivia, not an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listcruft as already mentioned Spiderone 19:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 19 of 67 are Youtube sources; 72% are various sources. The fastest goal is a recognized statistics in many leagues.^[1]^[2] It makes the page encyclopedic rather than trivial. At last, I find it the most interesting page in the Category: Scoring (sport). FIFA is a highly conservative, stagnant organization resembling Soviet Politbureau. Whatever exciting statistics you find, it is from other sources. God save, Wikiedia is created in the image of FIFA.--Maxaxax (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Linking to other Wikipedia articles about fastest goals doesn't make it notable. Joseph2302 11:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a classic case of an article needing tidying, not deletion. There's plenty of evidence of a broad interest in this topic. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable topic, it just needs cleaning up. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs expanding and tidying up - noteworthy topic. --Jimbo^[online] 21:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should remain in Wikipedia bcz it is an interesting topic. --Sadsadas^talk 14:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this topic has received widespread coverage from a lot of indepedent sources. I would say it's not LISTCRUFT, obviously of interest to a wide audience, aka anyone interested in soccer, which happens to be quite a lot of people. Icebob99 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic which has received coverage in numerous sources going beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:LISTCRUFT. The article needs cleaning up, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the sport's governing bodies (FIFA and the continental federations AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, Conmebol, OFC and UEFA) are not keeping records of this which tells enough about its notability. As a result it fails WP:LISTN. It's also filled with original research and unreliable sources (e.g. Youtube). To sum up, not an encyclopedic entry.T v x1 18:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can see statements of WP:ILIKEIT here, if the article is to be kept editors should show a willing to do so, rather thaan saying "cleanup needed". Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable topic. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:03, 3 December 2016 (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.