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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goal.com[edit]

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

lacks notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not usually apt to citing the Alexa ranking as an open-shut case, but as a top 400 site? WP:BEFORE clearly not done here, and the rationale is underdone and unsupportable. Well-known soccer site and even barring that, pretty obvious top-dollar web domain. Nate • (chatter) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE done, as the website isn't notable, hence me typing "lacks notability". Notability, or lack thereof, is a key test in recognising whether an article is worthwhile or not, a test Goal.com fails miserably. "Well known", right, but only for inventing news and being a source of mockery. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By saying ""Well known", right, but only for inventing news and being a source of mockery", I can only now assume this is a nom made because you don't like the website; you need to provide proof or some kind of balance that this site is some kind of Weekly World News for football news, which I'm not seeing at all out there outside of the usual social media "Goal.com sucks because they said something bad about my team" kveching. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Mr Schimpf, I just did a Google search to try and find some positive articles to provide some balance here, but there are no reports or profiles of this website. Can't imagine why this well known website wouldn't, can you? LOL. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've not seen any evidence that Goal.com receives significant coverage by third-party sources. – Pee Jay 16:09, 30 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.