Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadion Hajduk

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. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Hajduk

[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)

Keep Each article has to be discussed on its own, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. This particular stadium has been used in Serbian Superliga for years ad such stadiums have always been considered notable. Also you conviently forgot to mention other articles (for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surdulica City Stadium), where the outcome was different. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you able to provide as evidence that this stadium passes WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here, just some from the top of the search: https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/447977/Apel-za-obnovu-stadiona-u-Kuli https://voice.org.rs/voice-stadion-hajduka-iz-kule-u-stvari-ne-postoji/ https://www.mozzartsport.com/fudbal/vesti/bio-jednom-hajduk-iz-kule-stadion-na-dobosu-pocetna-cena-350-000-evra/266113 https://sport.blic.rs/fudbal/domaci-fudbal/u-hajduku-iz-kule-se-nadaju-reflektorima-za-narednu-sezonu/r6gener https://www.nasemesto.rs/2017/05/22/video-ceremonija-otvaranja-stadiona-milan-sredanovic-u-kuli-revijalna-utakmica/ https://kula.rs/2017/05/16/stadion-u-kuli-dobija-novo-ime-milana-sredanovica/ Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of notability-bombing with sources of dubious relevance or independence, please take the time to find the WP:THREE best sources amongst the above, i.e. those that meet all the criteria of WP:GNG (and then include what content there is in the article, to show that there is enough stuff here to warrant a page separate from the club). And if you can't find any, then you should be honest about it instead of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be honest enough to accept the sources as this is discussion about notability itself not about the current state of the article. The article can be expanded later. I see no point of expandind the article now, if you will just delete it later. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, indeed, the outcome for the Surdulica stadium was different: that's because NemesisAT and Olos88 did some legwork to come up with sources that satisfied the GNG, which is why I withdrew the AfD. By contrast, as in all of these debates, you've been engaging in nothing but obstructionism and changing your tune at every turn. (Like, for instance, complaining about OTHERSTUFF in one sentence and claiming that the Surdulica discussion backs you up in the next.)

Now beyond that ... The first "source" you claim is a letter to the editor. The second mentions the stadium only in the sentence "However, now Hajduk has been shut down and the stadium is for sale." The third source is a single sentence. The fourth appears to be about a different stadium. The fifth namedrops the stadium, and is substantially about a player. I get that you are unwilling to review WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS to educate yourself on what we look for in a source and what a source needs to say to support notability, but you are wasting everyone's time in throwing up random Google search hits in discussion after discussion and expecting them to make a difference. Ravenswing 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was the first one who came up with the sources for Surdulica (on talk pages). And I have not "changed my tune". I just showed that not only your argument is invalid, it is also factually wrong. It is also obvious that you do not understand the language and translated it wrongly if that is what you think of the sources (different stadium??? I am actually glad that you wrote that so people will know what to think about your comments). Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Hajduk Kula. Giant Snowman 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect per GiantSnowman, can have a paragraph on the stadium there.~~ Govvy (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per above. I can't find any SIGCOV from quick searches, and yet I would assume that something like a well-used, modern football stadium (this isn't some obscure place in the middle of nowhere...) would have such sources if it were truly notable (as opposed to being a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, not-particularly-remarkable football stadium which can be covered in it's logical parent's page). The keep argument does not address any of the reasons for deletion, not does it provide any source to support the idea this might be notable and that there is enough content to write an independent article (WP:NOPAGE is also a concern). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not convinced by the sources, but I have absolutely no wish to have any further argument with the person responsible for disputing the redirect, so quietly (I hope) taking my leave. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to call keep on this one per WP:NEXIST (although I can't be arsed to expand it and wouldn't mind a redirect until someone does). Here's some SIGCOV:
- "Apel za obnovu stadiona u Kuli" [Appeals for Renewal of the Kula Stadium]. Politika. 2020-02-15.
- "Stadion Hajduka iz Kule u stvari ne postoji" [Hajduk Kula Stadium Actualy Does Not Exist]. Voice.rs. 8 July 2015.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YApj279sV3c – 2017 (re)opening ceremony on a regional TV.
- "Opština Kula postala novi vlasnik fudbalskog stadiona „Milan Sredanović"" [Municipality of Kula Became the New Owner of the Stadium]. Naše Mesto. 2018-01-22.
- "Стадион у Кули добио име" [The Stadium in Kula Got a Name]. Municipality of Kula. 2017-05-20.
To sum it up: the club of 90 years went bankrupt in 2013 and disappeared, the Municipality eventually took over the stadium, it got renamed but it's now in disrepair... that's plenty of things to write about. But the article still says that it's owned by the club that does not exist since 2013. And we're arguing whether to keep it? No such user (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kula, Serbia. I didn't review the football club article enough, upon another review, maybe Kula, Serbia is a better target to house the stadium for the town on. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the town makes more sense than to the football club, of course. Ravenswing 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've expanded the article, so that now there should not be any objections. Olos88 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I still don't see it, you did a fair bit of work there and finding sources, but 95% of them? They don't seem to relate much to the stadium. And on a more serious note, you should not have moved the article while it's at AfD. That was a very bad move. WP:AFDEQ. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a part of improving this article, I moved it because the name was outdated, in 2017 stadium's name was changed and it just needed an update. Article is still fully accessible from this page, so it should not be a big problem. And, yes, some of the sources are in the article only to confirm some of the facts, while there are some, (i.e. mentioned above by No such user), that fulfill GNG criteria. Olos88 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, also the script involved in the close, can mess up the closes because you moved it. Another reason why you should not move an article under AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a big issue, it can be undone in anytime, the article should be moved anyway, no matter if now or after the discussion (if it withstands). Olos88 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, notable stadium, etc.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sole comment on the above: Making a mere assertion of notability without supporting this assertion with anything is nothing more than a pure vote, and does not help achieve consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources from Olos88 and No such user are good enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with a lot of similar articles recently, a lot of references added during the AfD. This has done the job of proving a degree of coverage, but we do not yet have a clear consensus on their significance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue that, whilst notability is not inherited for a stadium, this one warrants a separate article due to the coverage brought forth by No such user. [1] [2] [3] That would be three sources providing more than trivial coverage from sources considered to be reliable and independent of each other Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources that have been provided by others. Clear pass of GNG. Also, WP:THREE is an essay. Stop acting like it means anything more than that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the coverage provided shows notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2021 (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.