Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events held in Kombank 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 keep. It is clear that at this time that the community does not feel a list of this nature would fall under WP:IINFO. As such, there is no strong argument for this article's removal at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events held in Kombank Arena[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Kombank Arena). The "upcoming events" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what's your problem with this article. It's a useful collection of information about the events held in the Arena. It's not just a list, it contains information about the events, short description, notes, the info on the attendance (in the cases of record-breaking attendances), references, etc. If there is a problem about the fact this is a list, then we shouldn't have lists on wikipedia. Otherwise, for example, if there's an article on a concert tour (e.g. The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour), we'll have all the concerts in this tour listed. Also, in that case, we'll have scheduled events listed as well (official list of upcoming events in the arena can be easily found at http://www.kombankarena.rs/en/events/index/List+of+upcoming+events , so I believe that counts as a credible source. WP:FUTURE states: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In this case, these events are notable in the context of this article, and are almost certain to take place, as we have a reputable source claiming these events will happen). Finally, if you want some additional info or a summary, I will gladly provide it. But don't delete something just because you don't see a point of an article - someone else might see it. Why would you remove it, then? I really don't understand. This is a useful article, simple as that.--Vitriden (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have you even looked at the article? To present it as "promotional fluff for future events" is ridiculously incorrect.Zvonko (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a list of "Look what we've done!" that is mostly non-notable events. That has no other purpose than to be promotional. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Look what we've done" ?!? Huh? So, you're suggesting that the management of Belgrade/Kombank Arena created and maintained this Wikipedia article in order to profit from it? That's quite a burden of proof you've taken on.

Furthermore, if imparting info on what a person or an entity has done has as you accuse "no other purpose than promotion" and is therefore according to you subject to deletion and if concerts, tours, sporting events are "mostly non-notable" then a huge number of Wiki articles should be deleted. It seems to me that you're writing them off as non-notable simply because you yourself have never heard of them.Zvonko (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Copperfield's event in that venue on that date was not notable. Phil Collins' concert on that date in that venue was not notable. Etc. Etc. Notable people do non-notable things, especially in the day-to-day pursuit of their craft. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you don't think David Copperfield's and Phil Collins' activities are notable. Good for you, that's your POV. Unfortunately, the greater community is not agreement with you as evidenced by the existence of articles such as:

Seriously, Live! World Tour

Both Sides of the World Tour

The Hello, I Must Be Going Tour

The No Jacket Required World Tour

David Copperfield's laser illusion

David Copperfield's flying illusion

and so on and so forth. I guess I shouldn't be wasting any more of your time because you should then be principled enough to fight for the deletion of each and every one of these articles including some hundreds if not thousands more like them.

Also you want the article deleted on a false premise. You say it "has no other purpose than promotion" yet you offer nothing more than your POV in support of that claim.Zvonko (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job proving that the tours were notable. Poor job proving that one particular uneventful concert in the subject venue was notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I proved is your own logical inconsistency when it comes to requesting the articles to be deleted based on containing what you call "non-notable info" . You pretty much consider any single show "non-notable" or "run of the mill", yet a collection of those "non-notable, run-of-the-mill" shows is suddenly notable enough for you. But not always, sometimes you just feel like terming a collection of "non-notable, run-of-the-mill" shows not notable. So we're really going on your whim here, aren't we?

And when are you going to address your "promotional" accusations that you use as the basis to have this article deleted? How is listing events that took place in an arena promotion, while it's not promotion to list events as part of an article documenting an artist's tour? And please answer with something that doesn't amount to "it's like that because I say it is".Zvonko (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that I am the one who started this article and I am the author of some 80 percent of the article. I am a doctor of medicine from Belgrade, I have a regular job, and I am neither employed nor in any way affiliated to Kombank Arena. I started the article in 2007 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_events_held_in_Kombank_Arena&oldid=172751739 ), when there was only handful of events in the "previous events" section. I have also created some other articles, unrelated to Kombank Arena (listed here), and I've been an active contributor on English Wikipedia since March 2006. The reasons I've kept updating this particular article for seven years (dear God!) are: (1) I consider it useful; (2) I've started it and I consider that, as pretentious as it may sound, my duty. Oh yes, and (3) I enjoy it. So, if this is a "promotional fluff", I just want you and everyone to know it's not organized by someone employed by the Arena (I am not sure they even know about this article), but by me and a small number of other editors. If that's important anyway.--Vitriden (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is in any way "promotional". I agree with Vitriden that the list is useful. 23 editor (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't understand what makes you think no future event can be considered notable. Is 2014 FIFA World Cup notable by your standards?--Vitriden (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the more ridiculous AfD listings. None of the 4 points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply to the article in the slightest while invoking WP:FUTURE here, thereby essentially saying the article is "collection of unverifiable speculation", is simply too preposterous for words. A clear case of "I kinda don't like it so off with its head" if you ask me.Zvonko (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. Having some notable events or names in a list does not make the list notable. Having chunks of non-notable events serves neither the informational, the navigational nor the developmental purposes of lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists. And just because a person or band is notable does not make their every appearance notable. Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not convinced. Don't see anything in the guidelines listed here that supports the view of the info imparted in this article (or the way info is framed) as "non-encyclopaedic", "non-notable", "promotional", or "unverifiable speculation". The arguments presented here to delete this article basically boil down to "I don't like it".99.226.44.125 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". WP:LISTN doesn't require that all items in the list are notable.

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.