Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City National Arena

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City National Arena[edit]

City National Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources from the Las Vegas area and the primary tenant, the Vegas Golden Knights. Could be integrated/merged into the Team information section of the Golden Knights' article but at this point because of the WP:RECENTISM it appears to just be WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Candidates for deletion 194.28.127.53 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As it stands, not nearly enough information for a standalone facility that hasn't even opened yet. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable arena that doesn't need a mention in the VGK article, let alone it's own article. Also some serious WP:Own going on on the article. 194.28.127.53 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Toohool: While it certainly could have one sentence in the team info section on the Golden Knights' page, I highly doubt it deserves its own section like the Leafs. Big difference when comparing a team that has yet to play vs. one that has played 100 seasons. I would assume (assume being the keyword in that it just my observational opinion) that 99% of readers and hockey fans looking into information on the team are not looking for info about the team's practices and offices. Most just care about where to find them when they play games (which is what that Leafs' section is primarily about as well, the practice facility gets four sentences). Yosemiter (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement then that the arena should be mentioned in the team article (whether it be 1 sentence or 4 sentences). So why wouldn't we merge or redirect instead of delete? Toohool (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Toohool: I said "it could have one sentence", but I am not convinced that it should. As for a redirect, what would link there other than the Golden Knights? (The UNLV Rebels are currently an independent Div I club team and is still a ways off from jumping to NCAA level. It is possible the WSHL LV Storm could move in sometime as the WSHL will use the facility in their midseason showcase this year. The important thing to note though for both those teams is that they are both unlikely to meet GNG either right now.) I am also not quite sure how to incorporate it into the article at this time (but that is not to say that wouldn't work better once the team info section is properly expanded). Yosemiter (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: A redirect doesn't have to have links to be useful (it can be searched directly by users, and is also useful because it can be categorized), but it could linked from, for example, Summerlin, Nevada, Downtown Summerlin, UNLV Rebels (if someone adds a section on the hockey team), Western States Hockey League (if the Storm does end up moving there). And there's nothing difficult about integrating this info in the article, I just did it. Toohool (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as whether "the topic is significant to a comprehensive understanding of the team" ... huh?? Quite aside from that a redirect doesn't provide a "comprehensive" anything, what "understanding of the team" is conferred by anything about its practice rink? Teams practice places, full stop. An article about a team's practice rink gives you as much understanding about that team as (say) knowing that Hilary Knight prefers Bauer skates tells you about her. Ravenswing 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: Obviously a redirect doesn't contribute to an understanding of the topic, but my point is that info about the arena should be included in the team article. The redirect is just a natural consequence of that. This is not just their "practice rink", it's a $25-million standalone facility that the team built and operates, which is their headquarters, which is also open to the public as a community attraction, was considered important enough for a bank to buy the naming rights, and has been the sole subject of several in-depth news articles. What other article about a business would exclude such a facility from being mentioned? Toohool (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ones where such facilities weren't particularly noteworthy. If the rink's been the sole subject of several indepth news articles, then the discussion's entirely moot, because it would meet the GNG, yes? But the rest? Team headquarters buildings aren't notable by definition, not even if millions are spent on them. Public attractions aren't notable just by way of them being open to the public. Businesses buy all manner of naming rights these days, all the way down to Little League teams and local 5k charity runs. Ravenswing 18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several news articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. IMO, they don't reach the level of GNG, but coverage that is less than GNG level can be an indicator that some information should be included in an article. You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody here is claiming that the arena is notable, and notability is not the standard for inclusion in an article. Toohool (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/City_National_Arena&oldid=1068884990"