Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSU Soccer Complex

GSU Soccer Complex

[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)

Soccer stadium that's part of the Georgia State University with no independent notability. The university's article may need to be updated with the current status of its sport facilities, but this article is not useful. FalconK (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how this article is not useful User: Ajax.amsterdam.fan

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Georgia State Panthers#Soccer as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 10:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is deleted, we might want to look at moving GSU Soccer Complex (Grambling State) over to this name Spiderone 11:30, 18 January 2021 (—UTC)

In my opinion, there is no good reason to delete this article. It is useful and has the same information as other stadiums in college soccer. Deleting this article would just be ridiculous. -User: Ajax.amsterdam.fan

A football stadium is not inherently notable, every stadium should pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT to qualify for a stand-alone article, otherwise it should be redirected to the team until notability is appropriately demonstrated. Just because other stadia have articles is not a supporting argument for keeping this one; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Division I college soccer stadiums are generally notable. Article is in bad shape, but needs improvement, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this one notable though? We don't have a notability guideline I know of that confers automatic notability on all of them. FalconK (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the teams in the league have the stadium articles. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ludost Mlačani take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF when you have a chance. FalconK (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? It says "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." It also says "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." It seems to me that would apply here given every other similar topic has an article. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paradox here, though. If an editor were to bundle all of the articles together into one AfD, they would be accused of not doing a BEFORE search or not taking into account that each stadium needs to be considered on its own merits and it would probably be closed as 'procedural keep'. If you put all of them up for deletion, but in separate AfDs, you get accused of being disruptive or 'flooding' AfD with persistent requests. If you put just one article up for deletion, as has happened here, you get the response of "you're just picking on one stadium, other stadia have articles, therefore this one is notable" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a paradox. It is a clear indication, that all these stadiums deserve their articles. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Georgia State Panthers#Soccer does not meet SIGCOV for GNG or NBUILD. If the article develops and eventually meets SPLIT, it can be split. No objection if someone wants to merge sourced content. // Timothy :: t | c | a 14:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia State Panthers#Soccer, the only sources I could find were primary sources and passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia State Panthers#Soccer - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD; this piece of architecture would need to pass one or the other to have an article. The fact that it is a stadium does not make it exempt from meeting our notability guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]