Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SC Rade Svilar

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 Apatin. As a vote split pretty evenly between keep and not. Given the keep votes say nothing backed up by any guideline they are as weak as can be. I think this is the best option, no history has been lost and it can restored by anyone bold enough, but we no longer have an article which, when challenged, not a single editor has provided even one source showing significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SC Rade Svilar[edit]

[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)

Small town sports stadium for minor-league team that has been unsourced for 12 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]. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Ravenswing 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. This stadium was used also for higher leagues in the past. 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) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article has lasted for 10 years doesn't mean it's notable by default. It still needs to meet a notability guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ought to be improved not delete, as stadium for former first division squad.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That requires sources. Do you have some? What notability policy does beong a stadium of a first division squad satisfy? Any reason why this can't be addressed in the team article? Polyamorph (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ortizesp. Giant Snowman 12:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ortizesp doesn't proffer a valid policy ground to keep. Would you have any yourself? Ravenswing 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No harm repisting for another week, but nothing here really showing the ground satisfies WP:GEOFEAT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Mladost Apatin where it is mentioned - no evidence of meeting WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG, the first of which states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED just because the club happens to be notable. The comments regarding the club formerly being a top tier side have no relevance to any inclusion guideline. Merge would be okay as well although there is barely any content currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 19 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.