Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expected Goals

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expected Goals

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

unclear topic notability Enwebb (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An non-notable article. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:NEO. This is not a notable phrase, only a recently-invented "statistic" that has limited acceptance and dubious usefulness. It needs be widely accepted before we put it in an encyclopedia. It's not even in Wiktionary yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my responses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Postillion#Deletion_discussion_about_Expected_Goals --Postillion (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The theory is interesting, but there is no way this article is notable. Maybe this article and articles like it could be merged under an article called "List of Association Football Formulae" or something like that? Birdsgeek Talk 16:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a significant level of coverage on this metric across a number of academic papers covering its usage in a number f different sports. To be honest, don't see any reasonable deletion rationale above. Would be useful if other editors could comment on the sources in the text. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this looks like a no-brainer to close as delete, but as User:Fenix down points out, there's been no discussion of the sources and that should happen before this is closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a term that is now in common use (BBC Sport, FourFourTwo, The Guardian) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, common term widely used throughout sport. Plenty of coverage to pass WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:N. Avaay
An interesting case: the entire article probably needs some WP:TNT as it's relaying a lot of information from academic articles, et cetera. As to whether it's notable, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and while Expected Goals is a relatively new statistic, it's certainly one that is being used more often from an analytical approach to soccer, and as Jmorrison230582 noted has been discussed by several major news outlets. I'm going to vote Keep or at the very least draftify but this article needs some major work. SportingFlyer talk 21:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:35, 4 March 2018 (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.