Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best top division goal scorers
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 14:30, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of best top division goal scorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced. random inclusion criteria. included by Top association football goal scorers in a single season Koppapa (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant with the superior Top association football goal scorers in a single season. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - OR/POV/general nonsense. Not even sure the other article cited is notable either. GiantSnowman 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - confusing in terms of inclusion criteria making it hard to tell what should/could go in this list. Clarity of the other article dubious also.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research, unsourced with no inclusion or exclusion criteria. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As not meeting GNG and also a dubious inclusion criteria, that could be driven by original research and POV. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:27, 16 August 2012 (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.