Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Arena

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 merge‎ to Austin, Minnesota. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Arena

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Entirely unreferenced article which offers no indication of notability. None found prior to nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Minnesota. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As an NAHL (and former USHL) venue, it meets the threshold of notability. If it's sources you need, I can easily find any sources you may need. Tom Danson (talk)

I will happily withdraw if there is a policy which states that NAHL venues are inherently notable. That would, however, be contradictory to WP:ORGSIG (no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is) and WP:NARENA (sporting arenas, stadia and other venues do not have presumed notability, and are expected to demonstrate notability through meeting the general notability guideline). Dorsetonian (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dorsetonian beat me to it; WP:NARENA explicitly holds that no matter the importance of the competitions held at a venue, notability still isn't inherited, even were the rink an Olympic venue. In this case, the sole determinant of notability is whether the subject can meet the GNG, and as a small town municipal rink, it would be very unusual for it to have gained more than routine coverage through the local press. No prejudice against changing my position should actual coverage of the subject in "significant detail" surface. Ravenswing 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sources in the article. Austin runs the arena so they cannot be used. I found a few circular and user generated sources which cannot be used. Anything that doesn't fall into those two only cover basic information, like opening hours or the fact that it is a hockey rink. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable building lacking independent third party sources. Flibirigit (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was just about to suggest a redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Sports where the stadium is mentioned then found these: https://www.austindailyherald.com/2015/07/riverside-on-schedule-rink-should-be-ready-for-hockey-this-fall/ and https://www.austindailyherald.com/2010/09/riverside-arena-makes-its-debut/ These two count as a single source as both are from the same publication. Also this: https://history.vintagemnhockey.com/page/show/1254491-riverside-arena. Possibly not enough to meet GNG. I'll wait and see if anything else is found.Rupples (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspaper articles are by different authors almost five years apart; they are not the same source. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the source is the publisher itself, not the authors of the pieces. Austin Daily Herald = one source. Ravenswing 00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:SOURCE that prevents the use of articles in an independent newspaper as reliable sources; in fact the contrary is true. Kablammo (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention what you are replying to. This comment almost feels like a straw man with how tangentially related it is to the discussion. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation. This humble arena is barely borderline notable (per the newspaper refs above) and it deserves a place in Wikipedia. However, I think a paragraph in the parks and rec section is better than a standalone article -- more easily watched and tended than a stub by itself. This is, after all, another parks and rec facility. After filling in a few more sentences from those refs, I don't think a standalone article will ever grow much unless something dramatic there makes the news (fire, flood, etc.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation gets my support. Oppose delete. There is enough for a paragraph on the stadium from the sources listed in the AfD (now added). Not enough to keep without additional sourcing. Rupples (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are contradictory sources on the year the arena was opened. Article says 1973 (unsourced), The Austin Daily Herald states 1983 and here [1] it states 1976. Rupples (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Funnily enough it's the previously unsourced year of 1973 that's supported. May be Austin Daily Herald's 1983 is a typo? Rupples (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation per A. B. above, seems like the best solution all around absent significantly more sources. (I will note in passing that the statement made above that two articles in the same newspaper simply "are" the same source is not one that I can find support for in applicable policies and guidelines. WP:SOURCES is clear that "source" can refer to any of four definitions, all of which can affect reliability. Plainly, this is a context-sensitive determination; e.g. nobody would seriously argue that two separate books published by the same university press are automatically the same source. But anyway, that's probably neither here nor there as far as this particular article goes.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. Even if this article is deleted, a redirect to Austin, Minnesota in its place would be entirely appropriate as the venue is mentioned there already (in two different sections). At the time of nomination the article was entirely unreferenced and there was nothing that could really be merged; now I have no objection to something along the lines of "merge some and redirect". (The first paragraph is already present - just merge the ref; the specifics of the 2010 and 2015 upgrades might seem a little undue, but adding the fact it was upgraded on those occasions alongside the build date seems entirely appropriate.) Dorsetonian (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Parks and recreation section feels like the wrong place to merge into, IMO. That section concerns open spaces and nature reserves. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2023 (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.