Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Miller Field

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Miller Field[edit]

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

This is a non-notable college ball field.

The only mention in reliable sources is passing mention in obituaries about the field's namesake. Articles that are cited as coverage of the field are either promotional articles issued by FieldTurf (see here) or are articles published by the UIC Flames (see here and here. ^Bongo_matic 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.- The venue, as the home field of a Division I program in a major college sport, is notable. No, college baseball is not football or basketball, but it ranks a clear third in total attendance and media coverage (college hockey is too regionally limited to be considered a nationally notable sport). Its regular season, postseason, and championship are extensively televised on ESPN and ESPN2 (separating it from, say, track & field, whose coverage on ESPNU would of course not make it notable).

Considering the standards afforded the venues of college basketball (a major Division I sport), I argue that Division I college baseball venues are inherently notable. With college basketball venues, MEAC, SWAC, and NEC venues receive little to no coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Yet, no one doubts their notability because they assume Division I college basketball venues to be inherently notable given that they serve a major Division I sport. Again, I am not trying to equate college baseball with college basketball, but I argue that college baseball has a level of notability that affords its venues similar treatment.

Even if you do not accept the premise of the above argument, you've ignored the source from the Chicago Tribune. No, the article does not focus solely on the field, but GNG clearly states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Normally, I take issue with editors who hold articles to the standard of the New York Times, but here, coverage (albeit irregular) in a major national newspaper isn't even an issue. Best, Kithira (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Tribune happens to be the local paper, so it's not a "paper of record" in this case—it's reporting on high school baseball. Moreover, only two fact about the field (rather than St Ignatius's use of it) are that it's owned by UIC and that it has artificial turf. This is far less than "more than a trivial mention". ^Bongo_matic 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Kithira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcasey905 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 May 2012‎
Keep. I can see no benefit in deleting verified, uncontroversial information about a Division I stadium. This is exactly the kind of information anyone interested in UIC sports, or in Horizon League baseball, would expect to find. (I note that this field is the location of this year's Horizon League Baseball Tournament, which starts in a couple of weeks.) At minimum, pretty much everything in this article would be appropriately included in a section of UIC Flames. Given the level of detail, I'd be inclined to leave this as a separate article, but a merger discussion could be had outside of the AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple third party sources which are accurately referenced. Satisfies WP:GNG. Copy is terse and non puffy. More would help, but can't see an argument to delete. isfutile:P (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs to be updated and expended it is a Division I schools home field and there is no reason it should be deleted. ben_b (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 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.