Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaw Field (soccer)

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 Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer. I am satisfied the a consensus exists below to redirect. Please feel free to merge the content from behind the redirect if so desired. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Field (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

College stadium which does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer, merging content to briefly mention the field there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is a relevant article with primary and secondary sources. It is the home stadium for a popular and relevant college soccer team, so it should be kept as its own article. It is also a stadium with a unique feature, so there’s another reason to keep it - Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - as per Bushranger. GiantSnowman 08:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Georgetown Hoyas#Soccer - the coverage is nowhere near enough to pass GNG and the structure is nowhere near important or significant enough to pass NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, it's the home stadium of a top college soccer team, there would be no benefit from redirecting it. - Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A stadium currently needs to pass GNG or NBUILD to have an article and this one doesn't. If you want that policy to change then it might be worth starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG due to sources like [1], [2], [3], and the ones already in the article. This is the home stadium of one of the top college soccer teams in the country. It's notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - none of those sources are in-depth about the stadium, all are mere mentions, consisting of a listing and a single mention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the teams in the league have the stadium articles. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not true at all, New Mexico State Aggies, Utah Valley Wolverines, Chicago State Cougars and many others do not have articles. Notability is not inherited so the fact that some colleges might have a notable stadium does not mean that all college stadiums across the entire USA are automatically notable. Your assertion that we are singling this one stadium out is also false as there have been at least six up for AfD recently and that's just the US ones. There have also been many Spanish non-notable stadiums up for deletion with the exact same rationale, which is that there is simply no evidence that they meet GNG or NBUILD. This discussion is about this particular stadium so unless someone can prove that this stadium meets criteria, it is not notable. If you wish to suggest that all stadiums are inherently notable, then maybe you need to start a discussion at WT:NSPORTS or WT:NGEO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the teams you mentioned have anywhere near the coverage or significance of Georgetown, which has won multiple national championships and receives significant coverage. Spanish college soccer teams (if they even exist, which I highly doubt outside maybe intramurals) have even less coverage. It's not at all comparable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG in my opinion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect not enough for GNG in my opinion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to comment on the sources provided, Top Drawer is a passing mention, as is dcist and White and Blue briefly mentions it along with 9 other completely unremarkable and non-notable stadiums. I can't see how GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More sources, just in case the others weren't enough (they are) - [4], [5], [6], [7], and a bunch more but I'm not going to source bomb. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - and none of them are in-depth articles about the field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying that and it's clear nothing will satisfy you. There are several sources in this discussion and in the article itself that are about the field. Not that they are even required to be exclusively about the field, yet several of them are. But it's clear nothing will convince you this is notable, and I hope the closer will treat your !vote accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I've said it twice, another editor has also pointed it out. And we're saying it because it's true. One of the above citations, which does go into the field, is from a primary source, and therefore cannot be used to show notability. The other 3 are simple mentions of the field, two in articles about games played about the field, and another regarding the donation the field's namesake made to the university. So yes, I do hope the closer weighs the value of the additional sourcing provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's about the donation they made to the university to fund improvements to the field, which is why it's named after them. That's about the field substantially. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The non-primary source dedicates one sentence to what it calls a "field." That's not sigcov. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect I don't think the sources show WP:GNG since I don't think any of them directly cover the stadium, but I think this can easily be merged to the Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer article instead of the target posted above, which is a less specific merge target. Just not notable enough for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 1 March 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.