Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quibell Park 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quibell Park Stadium

[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)

Doesn't meet

WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - the sources included in the article itself go part of the way to establishing notability. It was obviously a more significant venue in the 60s and 70s than it is now. Recent mentions are just that and mostly relate to objections to a nearby housing development. None of those sources could seem to cover the venue itself in much detail. My hesitation is that there certainly are sources available and the manner in which it was opened suggests there would be a lot more coverage in older, non-digital sources.
Notability not being temporary, its lasting impact on the community should be considered. So I wouldn't be upset if this was kept but I accept that any such sources aren't immediately available. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Well, this is another example of the general bias against contemporary history, both in the form of the well-discussed "digital black hole" and in terms of the way some people think it is "stealing their childhood". If the BNA had as much material from the 1960s and 1970s as it does from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it would be far easier to find reliable sources for articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As it is, it fails WP:GNG, and the possible existence of older, offline sources is not a sufficient reason to keep it. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the Scunthorpe Telegraph article already cited, the stadium has been discussed in a BBC article and a published autobiography.
talk) 21:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As per comment above by
NemesisAT Footballgy (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Stadium featured in various local and BBC articles. Page needs expanding not removing. Finch14 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have balanced since the last relist but unclear what consensus is
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep - the sources provided by
NemesisAT are exactly the sort of references I was expecting to find, but couldn't. Commendable Google-fu. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:59, 27 August 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.