Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mladost Stadium (Lučani)

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 redirect to FK Mladost Lučani. Claims of significant coverage clearly rebutted in the discussion. As noted by a number editors, WP:GEOFEAT requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Association with any club or the leave of matches played at any ground has no bearing on whether a stadium is notable in itself, only the coverage that the stadium has received Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mladost Stadium (Lučani)[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination. There is a dispute over whether this subject is notable. Prior to the creation of a stub, this page was a redirect, which should be restored if there is a consensus that the subject is not notable. Please see past discoussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_14#Mladost Stadium (Lučani). signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Rosguill: Prior to the creation of a redirect, this page was an article for almost 15 years. The current introduction is missleading. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the venues of Serbian SuperLiga. What's more do you need for 'notability'? Olos88 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it, there are five sources in the article, proving that the stadium really exists and is a venue of Serbian SuperLiga club. Olos88 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not great sources though. Where's the significant coverage that is an essential prerequisite for inclusion? Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of the venues of highest national division is enough for significance. That means for example being present in live TV broadcasting ([1]), press articles, hosting best clubs with best players in the country, etc. Should I really look for more sources, which will just confirm what's obvious? Olos88 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still not significant coverage of the stadium though. Polyamorph (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If being first league venue is not enough, then what, should we have articles only about Champions League finals and SuperBowl hosts? Thousands of other articles should be deleted in such case. Olos88 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2017 stadium even hosted UEFA Europa League game [2] Olos88 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is only one thing that makes a sporting venue notable for Wikipedia purposes, and one only: meeting the GNG with multiple reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV. That's it. Ravenswing 10:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the policy justification for your opinion? Polyamorph (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've found something like this: WP:NVENUE Olos88 (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. I specifically requested a policy rationale. Or is there a formal guideline? That would do, but this essay is neither. Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, what you would expect more for notability, if, as I guess, every single player, that runs on this pitch (during competition game) is considered as notable. Stadiums stands for years in one place and in club's whole history there may be just one or few venues, not like a squad, which changes every season. Olos88 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Does it meet either of those? Please can you provide WP:THREE sources showing in-depth coverage? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding how notability works here, we can't say something is notable just because it exists. We need in-depth reliable sources, as Spiderone and Ravenswing have also explained. Regarding your point about "every single player that runs" on a pitch" being notable - I very much disagree with that rule. It is why, in general, I stay away from football and sports related articles. Compare it with WP:NPROF, academics have a much much higher bar to pass. But alas that is how consensus works. For stadiums we require adherence to our general notability guidelines per WP:NBUILDING. Anyway, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak. Cheers all Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article, giving some more informations and sources. These are obviously not scientific researches, but what kind of sources do you expect for the stadium. Every information is a fact (there is only small problem with capacity, one source gives 5.944 spectators (it is probably exact number of seating chairs), while all the others claim 8.000). I'm not claiming, that this object is notable because it exists, but because it is one of Serbian Superliga venues. And some word about WP:NFOOTBALL - we can agree with that or not, but it is a rule. I would find it very disproportional, if we have a lot of articles about footballers and at the same time we can't have articles about club's stadiums. Because we also have this: WP:NFOOTBALL, I suggest just to consider top-level football venues generally as notable (in this case we don't speak about some distinct league in Oceania, but about Serbia, where football has big popularity). This is also current practice, this kind of articles exists from years and also every other Serbian Super League venue (at least from current season) has it's own article in en-wiki. Olos88 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sources do we expect? We've explained that in detail, and shown you several links so that you can educate yourself on that count. As far as notability not being inherited goes, that is a longstanding and established guideline on Wikipedia, and twenty years in, the odds of that changing are pretty much zero; stadia are just never going to be presumptively notable. Now, on to the three sources you added.

[3] is from the website of the football club; it's a primary source, and does not count towards supporting notability.

[4] does not mention the stadium at all. I'm wondering why you felt this belonged in the article.

[5] doesn't say anything other than that the stadium got new lights. This is a trivial mention that fails under WP:SIGCOV. Ravenswing 22:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what do you want to prove me with this comment. Especially by writting using bold "does not mention the stadium at all". I've added this sources to confirm extra informations, not to necessarily prove the notability by showing stadium presence in reliable sources. These kind of sources were already present in the article before, I just change it to inline citations. Olos88 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to FK Mladost Lučani. To the keep proponents, I'm afraid you need to proffer a legitimate policy ground to back up your assertions. There is no notability guideline conferring presumptive notability on "top level" stadia (since the inevitable result would be that there's a DEK rink in Puerto Rico or a pickleball venue in Belize that you think is "notable") per WP:GEOFEAT, nor is there any notability guideline conferring presumptive notability on something that simply exists. Presuming that you're unfamiliar with the rules governing deletion, Olos88, in order to keep an article, a subject must meet WP:GNG, which requires that there be multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, and routine sports coverage is explicitly excluded. So ... the town's website doesn't count, and the team's website doesn't count, and the stadium's website doesn't count, and trivial mentions in the local media along the lines of "The game tonight at Mladost Stadium starts at 7 PM" don't count. What news articles have you found that discuss the stadium itself in significant detail? Ravenswing 10:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would argue that the notability of a stadium is WP:NOTINHERITED from its club but that's just my view Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As it happens, it's also the view of the official guideline: "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." Ravenswing 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, why does this or this source not provide "significant coverage"? I would say that this is enough. Olos88 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are trivial mentions that list a handful of bare facts. I really do urge you to read through WP:GNG and gain an idea of what constitutes significant coverage. Ravenswing 00:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it and I still think, that this source for example brings significant coverage and generally can be considered as suitable source for this article. Otherwise you can question for example this source (used here) or this (used here). Olos88 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Database profile pages do not provide SIGCOV. In the same way, a footballer being on Soccerway, Transfermarkt, World Football etc. doesn't make them notable. If a reputable newspaper writes an article with significant portions focused on this stadium then it's a different matter. A database listing? Not the same at all Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that StadiumDB is something more than just a database, just look there. And still, I think that the fact that stadium is a top-level venue means more than a fact, that some reporter wrote an article about that stadium, even in reputable newspaper (which of course may also prove it's notability). Olos88 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND has a much broader view of geographical locations, granting them presumptive notability. WP:GEOFEAT explicitly declines to give presumptive notability to buildings, stipulating that they need to pass the GNG.

Beyond that, you've certainly given at exhaustive length what you wish the relevant policies were. I hope you can understand, however, that deletions are determined based on what the policies say, instead. Ravenswing 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Strong keep Long standing top level stadium, used also for European competitions, enough sources (as already presented in RfD),so clearly a notable subject. Also all top level stadiums in professional leagues have articles and deleting this one would be a sign of a huge SYSTEMIC bias. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to FK Mladost Lučani per my comments to date in this discussion. If we are following the notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT, then this does not pass on the evidence presented. The small amount of info about this stadium can easily be merged into the parent article. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - the club being notable does not automatically make the stadium notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 20 November 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/Mladost_Stadium_(Lučani)&oldid=1056634808"