Deletion of IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper (2nd nomination)

Comment: I was |canvassed for my opinion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOldelpaso&diff=536750932&oldid=536611778, along with others who expressed a ''keep'' opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Footballer of the Year|another AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: and '''salt''' but '''Oppose G4''' - G4'ing this is just going to buy us more time-wasting pain when such a deletion inevitably ends up at . There are "sources" where previously none existed which calls into question any suggestion that the article is ''"sufficiently identical and unimproved"''. We should debate the validity of those sources here, sure, but I don't think G4 is a good idea. On the article itself, a simplified list article - ''winners of the ...'' - might serve to support the parent article in a functional sense, with the award itself explained in the parent organisation article. But an article about the award itself doesn't seem justified. That is, without substantially improved sources. Most of them seem to be coverage of individuals who have won the award in question. There are plenty of notable organisations that give awards to notable people. The organisations are notable, the people are notable but the awards aren't really notable in their own right, in my opinion, unless they have received significant coverage in their own right
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: not much has changed since the last AfD - the organisation is notable, this particular award is not. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTBALL)

Comment: per #G4. The article has not changed sufficiently since the last afd, which was subsequently endorsed by DRV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: Acticle was updated. |Reliable sources were added. Easy passes . 11 interwikies. Otherwise |AfD is not a substitution for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Not a single above delete vote has a valuable rational attached to it. The opinion of lack of notablility was dismissed through sourcing and the appeals to authority are meaningless. There are many other similar sporting awards with articles, and as the essay  states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". Being that there is no reason to delete this article, I suggest it not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)