Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surdulica City Stadium

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 no consensus. Article improved during discussion so hard to establish whether a true consensus to keep exists. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surdulica City Stadium[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 that has been unsourced for over 5 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."

Withdrawing nomination due to (a) NemesisAT's diligent work in finding sources, and (b) as important, his willingness to actually go in and fix the article, in contrast to some complainants. Ravenswing 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. 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) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And?. What is your policy argument for keep? Polyamorph (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 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)} 20:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ludost Mlačani, the size of the town is irrelevant; this is the stadium of a current top division club. There is this coverage of the stadium upgrade required when they were promoted to the top flight a few years ago. Number 57 10:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no notability criteria where the division of a club that plays in a stadium is relevant. While the source you present seems to be a good one, of course you're aware that WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources. Where are the others? Ravenswing 15:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite difficult to do a good search with a language that uses a different alphabet (and when the stadium has quite a generic name in Serbian), but these would appear to count, possibly plus these articles about Partizan Belgrade not wanting to play a game there due to its small capacity. Number 5 7 17:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per N57. Giant Snowman 12:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This stadium even hosted the final of Serbian Cup in 2018 (!) [2] (I know it's not in the article, but I can expand it if required, anyway, being a Serbian Super League venue should be enough for notability). Olos88 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not meet any relevant notability criterion. Ravenswing 00:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, indications of some degree of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to FK Radnik Surdulica. Per WP:NBUILDING, this must pass WP:GNG. The use of the stadium in super league or cup final games is irrelevant to satisfying WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED, unless the stadium itself (not the game or team) has been the subject of Significant coverage in reliable sources. The stadium should be discussed in the team article and hence this should redirect there following merge of any useful content. Polyamorph (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect; that was my first solution. Ravenswing 08:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded article a bit, I think this can help. Olos88 (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's walk down the sources you've added:
#13 - The sum total of content about the stadium in this edit is that a mural of a person was placed there. Casual mention, doesn't meet the GNG.
#12 - the subject is not mentioned at all.
#11 - Only the most fleeting mention of the subject: "Like other super league matches of Vranje, says Antic, this duel will be played in the neighboring Surdulica."
#10 - The stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city: "The host of the final is Surdulica."
#9 - The text states that this is a press release.
#8 - The stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city.
#7 - In this forty-word sound bite, the stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city.
#6 - A casual mention, and here's the sum total: "And on a field that, to put it mildly, does not offer ideal conditions for the game. The capacity of the stadium is only 3,312 seats."
#5 - The city is namedropped twice in a routine match report; the stadium is not mentioned.
#4 - We see this as the final sentence of a match report: "Before the game, around 2 pm, two groups of Partizan fans clashed with each other on the way to Surdulica."
In short, you just googled "Surdulica" + "football" and threw up a bunch of results. No, this does not help. I work under the presumption you're acting in good faith, but WP:REFBOMBING is a waste of our time and energy. Ravenswing 12:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't add all these sources to prove stadium's notability by presence in this articles, I just add more informations that can (maybe) convince you that this subject is worth of having a stub on en-wiki :) So, the stadium stands from 1955, from 2015 every season hosts Superliga matches of Radnik Surdulica, which was on last season the 6th power of serbian club football, for one season it even hosted Superliga matches of some other club, which had problems with their own ground, and in 2018 hosted national cup final (which, in terms of "notability by significant coverage", gain some extraordinary focus on that pitch and caused a dispute whether it is relevant for hosting such game, which also gain some media attention). And no, I didn't just googled "Surdulica" + "football" and threw up a bunch of results, it's quite unfair to sum up my work on expanding this article and giving some more important informations, in that way. Olos88 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying that some of those sources might not be useful in providing information, or that sources that bolster the notability of the subject are the only ones which belong in articles. That's just not the issue at hand. The issue here is whether there are sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to the team. Without those sources, there could be fifty newspaper articles namedropping the stadium (and given WP:ROUTINE sports coverage, probably would be), and the subject still fails the GNG. As far as the GNG is concerned, 0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Bringing qualifying sources to our attention is what would save the article. Anything else is superfluous. Ravenswing 09:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some extra portion of informations and refs. I really think that this is enough for "significant coverage", at least in this case... Otherwise, I think that some notability discussion should be started (this is good way to start: WP:NVENUE), because from many years we have plenty of articles about stadiums such like this one and many of them can be easily questioned in the same way, which could lead to chaos and massive deletion. Olos88 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, article is completely different to what it was when nominated for deletion and when the above votes were made. NemesisAT (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it now has enough refs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A considerable amount of discussion but still no clear consensus. Suggestions that sufficient sources have been added to show notability, but GNG is shown through the significance of the coverage not the number of sources themselves which seems to be what is being shown here. Not sure HEY is applicable here either as sources have been discussed in this as they have been added. Rather than simply adding refs and asking "is this enough", it would help the closing admin for editors to point to specific sources and elements in them which amount to significant coverage. There's clearly at the worst the odd mention of the stadium in a wide variety of sources but very difficult to tell the degree to which editors feel it goes to any real depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From analysing some of the sources, the following appear to be independent and should count towards establishing notability:
- Stadiums.net appears to be a database, but it does have two paragraphs with history of the stadium.
- Vranje News has a section on a player taken from Wikipedia which can be ignored, but the article itself is about a mural on this stadium.
- Juzne Vesti, which I added to the article while writing this comment, focuses on the installation of floodlights and refurbishment of the stadium
- Novosti, a second article focusing on the renovation of the stadium

NemesisAT (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm still not seeing any one article providing significant coverage. On the other, NemesisAT has come up with several sources that come pretty close, and on the strength of that, am withdrawing the nomination. Good save, @NemesisAT:. Ravenswing 05:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we can't just close the AfD as there are outstanding opinions on both sides. Happy for any other admin to call when they see fit, but these comments on the sources are just the sort of comments that help form consensus. Fenix down (talk) 21:03, 26 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.