- Detelinara Stadium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe there was not enough time for discussion. We have more arguments that the subject is notable but we could not present sources in time. So in a way you could say that the "significant new information has come to light." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go again:
- Endorse redirect: Ludost Mlačani had a full week at AfD to present qualifying sources. He didn't bother to do so, and never actually raised a valid policy ground not to redirect. As far as the sources he now deigns to present goes, the first one is a press release by the city (and so both a primary source and debarred from contributing to an assertion of notability), the second and fifth are brief fact sheets debarred from contributing to an assertion of notability, the fourth is from the football club's website (and therefore a primary source), and the two books cited do not provide significant coverage to the subject, as opposed to the football team. The third source looks decent -- if it is indeed reliable -- but that is not enough to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, pinging @Paul Vaurie, Number 57, Polyamorph, GiantSnowman, and No such user:, who voted in the AfD and whom Ludost Mlačani did not inform. Ravenswing 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: I'll go by the sources offered in relation to DRVPURPOSE #3:
- 021.rs (reliable local source) story: routine local coverage; Detelinara is a neighborhood of the Toledo, OH-sized city and this story is "neighborhood news" that isn't of significant interest already at the city level
- europlan-online.de page contains no text, only some yellow pages type content and a few basic raw facts
- rtv.rs (regional-level state television) content is a transcript of the mayor's appearance on the regional television where he addressed the local community and talked about how the dilapidated stadium will be repaired; 90% of the text are his quotes
- rfknovisad.com is a primary source
- similar to 2
- books: not about the stadium; each is about a club
- Comment, rfknovisad.com is not a primary source. The stadium is not owned by a club but by a city. RFK Novi Sad is one of the users. There are currently 6 sport clubs using this facility and a Radnički Sports Society (RFK actually tried to build their own satdium back in 2012, but that plan fell throgh https://www.ekapija.com/real-estate/642003/KZIN-PR/kanarinci-lete-sa-detelinare-fk-novi-sad-planira-izgradnju-novog-stadiona-centra). And are regional sources forbidden or what? If that is the case those news were published also in national media (e.g. https://www.ekapija.com/news/2918100/pocela-rekonstrukcija-novosadskog-stadiona-detelinara-u-planu-sredjivanje-tribina-i-fasada). Also Novi Sad is a second biggest city in Serbia and the capital of Vojvodina which is an Autonomous province bigger than some European countries. And why is a book with a part about the stadium not ok? ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So clearly the books are fine. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a primary source and it doesn't matter who owns the stadium. Routine urban-neighborhood-level news is forbidden. It doesn't matter if they come from a local news org or "national media" (Serbian-language news portal), the type and scope of coverage is the issue. Also, the bigger Novi Sad is, the fewer residents of Novi Sad itself even know about this small stadium. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviosly you do not know what you are talking about. Ask anyone, practically all the residents in Novi Sad know about Detelinara (which is irrelevant information here anyway). And I do not understand, the scope of a news about a stadium is always local, each stadium has a location. Then also an article about the reconstruction of Santiago Bernabeu is urban-neighbourhood-level news, as that stadium is located in the neighbourhood of Chamartín. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- —know about the stadium, not about the urban neighborhood. It must seem like I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't actually read. And how can't you understand that your point about Novi Sad being relatively big is counterproductive. The bigger Novi Sad is, the less relevant even locally this building is. It's not only not worthy of a separate article, it isn't worthy of a mention in the Novi Sad article (see the table); were it located in Bačko Petrovo Selo however, probably it'd deserve a mention there, as it would be interesting to note that a settlement of that size has a stadium of any kind. I forgot to add, this is what an article on Santiago Bernabeu (used as a source in that article) renovations looks like:Real Madrid hope €525m Bernabeu renovation gives them 'best stadium in world', ESPN. 24 Sep, 2018 — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, know about the stadium, not the neighborhopod (well, also about the neighborhood of course). The articles are about the stadium, not about the neighborhood. Maybe you did not understand, Detelinara is the name of the stadium. And what gives you a right to decide what is worthy to mention in the Novi Sad article and what not? Did you delete it? I know it was mentioned the last time I checked. And I do not really see the difference between your source and mine, except yours is "reliable" ESPN and mine is "not realible" Serbian national/regional media outlet. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond Alalch Emis's sensible comments, you're being disingenuous. In these stadium discussions, you've routinely based your opposition on your belief (unfounded though it is in actual policy) that the prominence of the club is the determining factor. Which do you actually believe? Ravenswing 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say that exactly? Either way it is notable. If you ignore the clubs, it is still one of the two biggest and best known stadiums in the city of Novi Sad and if you want to relate it to the club, it is used (among others) by RFK Novi Sad, one of the biggest legendary cult clubs in the country, that also played in Yugoslav First League. This was huge, 10.000 people used to gather here. This stadium for Serbia is something like Grünwalder Stadion is for Germany. Of course noone would think of deleting that one. And for me one of the main factors is the level of play on the stadium (including the past). I just hope the closer will be objective and will ignore all the prejudices, bellitling, ridiculing, underrating, discrimation and biases. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're joking, right? [1] "Long standing top level stadium", [2] "This stadium was used also for higher leagues in the past.", [3] "This stadium is used in a top professional football league", and so on and so forth. This has been the core of your arguments, and is the core of your argument here. Ravenswing 09:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, is not that exactly what I just said??? "And for me one of the main factors is the level of play on the stadium (including the past)". You just comfrmed it. It is not the club, but the competition, that is the most important. And it is not MY argument, it is the standard argument in stadium debates. So far top level professional league stadiums were always considered notable (except obviously since last week for some reason the Serbian ones). Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." That's the official Wikipedia guideline. Your personal preference is not. No, it is not a "standard argument;" if it was, it would be a discredited one, because neither WP:GEOFEAT nor WP:NOTINHERITED allows presumptive notability to buildings on account of their tenants. You are certainly free to believe whatever you please, but applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies are what we rule on here. So far, over several weeks and numerous such debates -- in which you've invested a full fifth of your Wikipedia edits to date -- you have failed to identify a single official notability guideline supporting your preference.
In any event, there's no point in engaging further, since you seem so heavily invested in getting the last word. Ravenswing 12:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you concern in what I invest my edits? I invest them in topics I know about. And you know very well I would not make so many edits about it, if you would not have deleted half of the football stadiums in Serbia (and not a single one from any other country if I am correct) just to illustrate a point. It is not strange for me to invest my edits in those topics, since I am researching this field for my whole life, while it is strange that you out of a sudden invested several weeks for something you clearly never had any interest in (some might even call that a disruptive behaviour). And I know what the policies say and I think I explained well enough why this stadium is notable on its own merits. You started with the irrelevant "club argument" and you claimed as a main rationale for the deletion that it is not notable, because it is (and I quote) "sports stadium for fifth-tier team" (and then I was the one who explained it to you that according to policies the current tier of a club is irrelevant, since this is about the notability of Detelinara stadium, not RFK Novi Sad). So maybe you are the one who did not understand the NOTINHERITED policy. Althogh the relation is noted here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability (another indication that makes this stadium clearly notable). Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. I expect you either didn't notice (or hoped we wouldn't notice) that that link is an ten-year-old essay without any official standing from a defunct Wikiproject. This is just another of several elements which points to why I mentioned your edit count; that you are an inexperienced editor with demonstrably little understanding how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 05:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not defunct, but inactive and it is the only notability standard for sports venues. I know it is an essay and I never claimed it is anything more than that. I just wanted to show you, that it is is not "my personal preference", of what you wrongly accused me. It has been used as a consensus for years. Again, just check all the 450+ stadiums from the category and previous AfD debates. And exposing experience of editors is not an argument but a personal discreditation. Do not worry, I understand very well how the Wikipedia works, thanks for your concern. Also I though you did not want to have the last word. :D That said I would also like to see some comments from the actual WP Football editors. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - the discussion had the required 7 days. The arguments for redirection/deletion were closer to the guidelines (i.e. WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG). There is no policy-based reasoning that every stadium that has ever played host to a sports team playing in the top tier of their national league absolutely must have a separate article. Effectively, the redirect hasn't deleted anything as all of the information is already covered in RFK Novi Sad 1921, which is barely more than a stub anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's enough reason to permit recreation. Personally, altho I in general think we have too many minor sports articles. I do think that every stadium that has ever played host to a sports team playing in the top tier of their national league should have a separate article. That's a little less than "absolutely must", but its a reasonable rough guide. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This entire discussion is a huge mess and should almost certainly have been a no consensus. There's no reason why we can't have an article on this either but GNG should be better demonstrated in the article, so at worst if the decision is endorsed, draftification should be allowed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Before the redirect, the entirety of the article was "Detelinara Stadium is a multi-use stadium in Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia. It is used mostly for football matches and is the home ground of FK Novi Sad. The stadium has a capacity of 6,000 spectators." That much information is in the FK Novi Sad article already, and ignoring the relevant guidelines (GNG and WP:GEOFEAT) to overturn the redirect doesn't elevate this stadium beyond the sub-stub it's already been for 13 years. If there were sources that met the GNG, that would be one thing. If there was a genuine notability criterion giving presumptive notability to stadiums just because, that would be one thing. But there aren't, and there isn't.
Beyond any of that, there already had been a consensus at AfD to redirect. Ludost Mlačani just didn't like the decision, and promptly came here for a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Ravenswing 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a "sub-stub," that's a stub. The only questions here are whether GNG is met and whether it's better off as a stand-alone. The consensus at the AfD was that a stand-alone article doesn't need to exist but most of the discussion ignored GNG. With additional sources, a stub could probably be supported on notability grounds. The other thing is that you have to be very cautious when searching for notability in foreign languages. Another correct search term here would be "Stadion na Detelinari," and there's almost certainly something if you can get access to Dnevnik archives or other Yugoslavian archives which isn't the easiest. There's no real reason we can't have an article here - the onus is on those wanting to keep it to add more sources, the 021 and RTV sources are clearly okay but cover the same topic at the same timeframe and can't really flesh out more than a sentence of an article, the other web sources aren't, the books might be very good sources if independent but don't appear to be online. It's not an argument for restoring as is, clearly there's still a little bit of work involved, but it's not far away. The other wrinkle here is that this stadium may have never hosted top flight football - the Serbian article reads "This football club got its stadium in 1966 by merging with Radnički Novi Sad," whereas Novi Sad were in the top flight from 1961-64. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we imagine this to be a notable topic (according to me: not; but whatever): Notability doesn't guarantee a separate article (WP:N is ...
not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page... ). I don't see, based on all the sources provided including the "new" ones presented here, how this could be a sustainable article. It's less than a normal paragraph long and will stay that long, unless someone really digs into those unproven books to find some possible relevant information. That would point toward draftification. Consensus to redirect was eminently policy-based in light of relevant facts and circumstances. Did anyone demonstrate how the article could be expanded? Either in the AfD or as a WP:DRVPURPOSE reason #3? No. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Irrelevant of the notability issue, there is no clear reason why we need to breakout this article from its parent. Space isn't an issue. So organizationally the creation of the article seems unneeded and honestly unhelpful. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Nothing has convinced me that the deletion process has not been properly followed. As the article has not been deleted, it is possible to re-establish a separate article at a future time when this is justified; this does not need a DRV but can be discussed at the relevant article talk page or dealt with via WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
