Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolubara Stadium

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 keep. On reflection, consensus is to keep Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolubara Stadium[edit]

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

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

Small town sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [1]. Ravenswing 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. This stadium is used in a top professional football league and all such stadiums have their articles. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single such article has been deleted, and none of the articles that were redirected were more than sub-stubs parroting information already in the team articles. Ravenswing 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which meets any relevant notability criterion. Ravenswing 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No overriding consensus but indication of some level of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to FK Kolubara. As of now, the entire contents of the article are Kolubara Stadium is a multi-use stadium in Lazarevac, Serbia. It is the home ground of FK Kolubara. The stadium has a capacity of 2,000 spectators. . Should anyone bother to WP:HEY this to a reasonable size (and I don't see a potential with the floodlight news) I could change my vote, but in the meantime, we're better off without this non-article which we're spending kilobytes to argue about. No such user (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY by Olos88. I'd like to remind the participants that this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and we're supposed to provide the best possible coverage to our readers. While there were indeed many junk articles about Serbian stadiums, credits for expansion should be given where earned, and this is one of the cases. The claims that hosting internationally important events do not contribute to a venue's notability are preposterous. No such user (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added the references shared above plus a couple more to the article, and expanded it. I think there is enough here now to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are now enough references to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus some arguments that there are now "enough" references to establish notability. Editors are reminded that whilst multiple instances of coverage are required, it is the depth of coverage in those sources that confirms if something is notable. All we seem to have here are a few sources commenting on the basic facts of the stadium. Would be good to see brought out the elements in these sources which show "significant" coverage as its not helpful to any closing afmin to have to try to interpret things like that when closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect WP:HEY does not apply, as the article in its "improved" version is still based on sources of dubious independence (press releases, ...), and contains very little significant content about the stadium itself (i.e. a further proof of the unsuitability of the sources). The keep arguments by Ludost, N57, GiantSnowman, Olos all argue that somehow, notability is inherent or inherited from the stadium's football club. That is also an argument which can be tossed out, since, explicitly, notability requires verifiable evidence and is not, ever, inherited: such an argument seems to stem out of a misconception that SNGs (entirely forgetting that the only one that applies here is explicit that this still needs to meet GNG) are some form of "criteria", when in fact they are, very clearly, indications and guidelines to help article writers and other editors assess whether their subject is notable (as most of them say, to quote NSPORTS, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.).
    In addition, outside of the notability (or lack there-of), this "article" is so short that it would actually be very reasonable to redirect it to it's logical parent (the football club which it hosts) and include the content there. WP:NOPAGE is relevant guidance: Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Given that this can be easily covered in the target article, and that in addition it future proofs this (say, at some point, the club changes stadium/builds new one/...: then both the information about the old and the new stadium can be included, in the same article, with relevant context...), that seems a perfectly valid reason not to have a permastub. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some new data as well as new refs. You can find much more coverage about the stadium, for example: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I don't think it needs to be added to the article, but I can do it if it's necessary. Olos88 (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're invited to highlight WP:THREE sources amongst these (all of which happen to not be in English...) which best meet WP:GNG. WP:CITEBOMBS don't help anyone. The latest addition to the article: 1) is not very much (one sentence about newly installed lights) 2) part of it is a WP:COATRACK about the club, for example; and suggests again that a redirect is a better option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, these three should be ok: [11] [12] [13] Olos88 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. 1 is mostly quotes from an individual identified as the "president of CSO Lazarevac", so clearly an interview, and not an independent source. No. 3 is, similarly from "Fudbalski savez Beograda", which clearly is the organiser of the football league. No. 2 only seems to cover the fact the stadium got lights (apparently a rare occurrence in Serbia); and beyond this little detail, much content is clearly cited as coming from "Bojan Stević", identified as the president of the FK ("football club?") Lazarevac, including some statements of thanks to the financial backers of the project and the final paragraph. From those sources the only encyclopedic thing you could basically say is "Stadium has got lights, which were installed in 2019". That's not SIGCOV, nor is it enough to justify a separate article. The other additions to the article seem to (beyond having grammar issues) also be minor and routine occurrences, many of which I removed per WP:NOTNEWS. It would still make far more sense to have this in the article about the club. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from your interpretation of this sources, could you just not delete important content, which belongs to stadium's history? I hope next time some admin would react. Olos88 (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And now back to the sources: 1) It's not clear interwiev, but even if, published media article with interwiev, where the only subject of discussion is a stadium, should meet GNG criteria 2) There are more encyclopedic things than just "stadium got lights in 2019", the source also states i.e. that local municipalities as well as ministry of finance, ministry of economy, national football association and government including prime minister participated in works at the stadium, which clearly indicates, that it wasn't just an ordinary renovation, article also sais that after this stadium meets UEFA criteria and is just one of several (16) venues in the country, that has an artificial lightning (2nd with LED lamps). 3) FSB is regional FA, the organizer of Prva liga or SuperLiga is national FA (FSS). Olos88 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Olos88 The problem is that you keep adding WP:NOTNEWS trivia which shouldn't be there. If other stadiums have this same problem, then the solution is to remove it from the other stadiums too. We're an encyclopedia, not a friggin fan-site. 1) It is a clear interview; and if it is with someone directly affiliated with the organisation which uses it, then it is not independent. 2) Yes, the stadium got financed by local government and football associations. How routine. That's not an encyclopedic fact. An encyclopedia is a summary, not a listing of everything known about a subject. 3) So this is so important it's even below the notice of the national FA, despite this apparently being only the 2nd stadium in the country with LED lights? Ignoring the fact that whichever FA it is from, it can't be considered independent in any case (as local FAs have a clear interest in promoting themselves...), this is again more proof of the lack of notability. What you are doing is desperate grasping at straws, adding dubious content to make the article look more impressive without addressing any of the actual issues. I.e. nothing short of a WP:CITEBOMB... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you should also remove for example this content St Mary's Stadium#Notable matches, Emirates Stadium#International football matches, Keepmoat Stadium#Internationals, Bramall Lane#International matches, Stade Michel d'Ornano#International matches, I'm curious to see authors and admins reaction to your explanation, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper :) Olos88 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have clearly not grasped either the meaning of my comment here nor my edit summaries. As I said, that WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTNEWS mess needs to be removed from those other pages too. Why don't you go and add a similar list to, I don't know, Wembley stadium? I'll tell you why: cause it is not encyclopedic information, here or there, because an encyclopedia is neither a database nor a fansite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whole "Sport" section in article of Wembley stadium is about sports events, it's just not listed (except rugby section, where are small lists) but described. What kind of informations are more important for the sports venue, than the sports events itself, important games, etc.? How can you claim, that it completely not belongs to venue's history and is not worth of mentioning? Olos88 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big difference between an encyclopedic summary and a database-like listing of every single "major" event. That there are so few is an additional sign there is unlikely to be much coverage for this to warrant an article that consists of more than routine coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a summary, I wrote just small notices (I can write much more ;)) on the most important events, like international games, which are usually listed/mentioned/described in sports venues articles. Olos88 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't "made a summary". You've just given a listing of every single international game played (based, of course, on primary sources and routine match coverage) as well as a whole paragraph which also consists of nothing but match results (along with the utterly unremarkable quip about the club being promoted, an event which has strictly no relevance to the stadium unless you're a fan of the football club)... This would be akin to adding this kind of listing to Wembley Stadium (1923) (or the equivalent for the modern one; or think up of similar examples in all kinds of other sports: adding every international cricket fixture played at The Oval or at the MCG; every Stanley Cup final held in an ice hockey arena, ...). That is clearly an example of WP:NOTDATABASE, whether it consists of 3 or 300 entries, and does not justify having a separate article about this stadium, protestations to the contrary and accusations of systematic bias notwithstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing of most important facts like the result or character of the game can be considered as "summary", I haven't brought all the circumstances or details of events during the game, as well as data like squads, referees, attendances, etc. There are just three international games in this case, so listing them clearly doesn't affect the proportions in the article, otherwise a collapsible table could be used for example. Three international games or historical promotion of residing club were clearly the key sporting events during ground's 95 years of history, without even mentioning of it, the article wouldn't be complete. If you want to show The Oval as an example, I would like to point out, that there is a list of international football games played on that pitch including friendlies and even unofficial friendlies. Olos88 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was an easy fix (in addition to the fact no reliable source was provided to support said tables). Three ordinary international games are not "significant events" (unlike, say, matches in the World Cup, or the final of a major top-level competition), and if a stadium has held so few of them then it's a sign there isn't much content about it and that merging/redirecting this elsewhere is a more appropriate outcome. Articles should not consist of mostly routine sports coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're approaching no true Scotsman. No coverage is good enough. No such user (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the approach here and at other similar articles has been "throw whatever shtick at the wall and hope some of it sticks", you shouldn't be surprised that most of the coverage is "not good enough". Routine sport coverage (as in [Game] was played here on [date] between [Team A] and [Team B], ending in a [result/score] is not WP:SIGCOV, whether there are 500 or 5 such games (although one would assume that with 500, there would be enough coverage to actually write an article which consists of more than a timeline of sports results). It does not help, either, when most of the content in the article is not about the article subject but a WP:COATRACK (i.e. "grasping at straws to save this non-notable page") about the club which played in it (which should, and has, been moved to the relevant page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems genuine and of substance. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a decent amount of info on there with some good sources now it's been expanded. It does need some trimming down. JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go on this. Feels like no clear consensus though. Despite there being clear rebuttal of sources presented at pretty much every turn, showing that the sources contain only passing mentions or are focused on club playing at the ground rather than the ground itself, they don't seem to be sufficiently persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has more than enough sources and is notable. There is also a clear consensus User:Fenix down I think there a 12 keeps and two deletes, thats a very clear one.

Super (talk) 00:00, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kolubara_Stadium&oldid=1058558620"