Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Chang Stadium

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Chang Stadium[edit]

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

Fails the GNG, not having been covered in-depth by any reliable source at all, as far as I could determine. Only news coverage I found was a passing mention of its being used as a temporary practice ground by Chonburi F.C. while their home stadium was being rebuilt in 2009.[1] Other Google results are forum posts, mostly asking for directions as it appears to be really obscure. For context, this post contains some photos.[2] It's more of a field with a concrete stand rather than an actual stadium. Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC) PS PROD contested by MensanDeltiologist. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable soccer field. Rockypedia (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator has been indefinitely blocked for problematic editing, especially not adding sources to articles, so won't be able to comment here. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I contested the prod because the reasons given were because it was unreferenced and no longer used. In my edit summary, I wrote “You can ask for reference and fact it s no longer used doesn’t mean it isn’t notable.” For example, the first two Yankee Stafiums don’t even exist anymore yet they are still notable. The reference situation discussed in earlier comments is another story. It is one thing to ask for references and another to not be able to find any. I didn’t look because even if I found one, I don’t feel comfortable enough with the subject to know what was relevant and what wasn’t. So I left it to others to look into. I am neutral on the subject of whether or not to delete but based on the reasons given in the prod, I felt it deserved a shot to be improved. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 07:10, 7 February 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.