Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ULM Softball Complex

: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. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[ULM Softball Complex]]=

:{{la|ULM Softball Complex}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ULM_Softball_Complex Stats])

:({{Find sources|ULM Softball Complex}})

Non-notable softball complex. All information is directly primary sourced. Nothing notable about it. Caffeyw (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete—I could find exactly one non-[WP:ROUTINE] source for this... [http://www.knoe.com/story/16096272/new-ulm-softball-complex-expected-to-help-local-economy New ULM softball complex expected to help local economy], and one isn't enough. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the home venue for an NCAA Division I varsity athletic team. Also, keep in mind that the main local newspaper for the Monroe area, The News-Star, hides it's articles behind paywalls, making accessibility to a primary source of coverage a problem. FWIW, the editor who nominated this article for deletion (Caffeyw) appears to be a very new editor, who has already committed several deletion-related faux pas on Wikipedia. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::Is there a consensus somewhere that I've missed that just because NCAA softball games are played there that it is a notable building? Caffeyw (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::Comment—I applaud any effort which attracts and retains editors, regardless of their gender, as long as the efforts follow WP policies and guidelines. Creating articles on non-notable sports stadiums, and then keeping them after they are nominated for AfD, is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. While your effort is noble, its nobility does not confer a licence to ignore key policies like WP:N and WP:RS. I suggest you put the information on the stadiums in the article on the team that plays there, and focus your efforts on creating articles which meet the notability guidelines, and expanding articles that already exist. There's plenty of stubs on notable softball-related topics.

:::Self-reply Comment—For an example of what I'm proposing above, see the treatment of OSU Softball Complex. I'm really tempted, depending on how this AfD turns out, to do the same thing for all the articles you've listed above. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::: Re: "While your effort is noble ..." The effort isn't mine. I've not created or edited any of them. Like you, I'm simply offering my assessment . In my view, the news coverage of the ULM facility makes for a borderline case under WP:GNG, and I tip toward "Keep" due to the concerns noted above with respect to retaining women editors and better developing women's sports topics. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::Apologies, I assumed you were somehow connected with/participating in the effort. Could you share the non-WP:ROUTINE news coverage you found? As I stated in my !vote, I could only find one article that was borderline routine. If there's more, then it would change my thinking on this. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Google News Archive and Newsbank Newslibrary searches (using multiple variations on the facility's name) turn up hundreds of hits, albeit mostly routine. I spent just a few minutes sifting and found a couple of non-routine articles (both cited above). If I had time to sift further, I'd expect there to be more, but already enough IMO for reasons stated above. Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep I do not particularly see what this has to do with the need to attract women editors, except that women as well as men play softball, as is true for most sports and other significant activities. I'd expect there are very few topics here that women as well as men would not be interested in. But the venue is notable, as are other major athletic venues, including those at major universities with a famous emphasis on sports. Of course the great majority of news hits for any athletic venue will be for the events there: they are built for that very purpose. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment—Can you share your reasoning behind the statement "But the venue is notable, as are other major athletic venues, including those at major universities with a famous emphasis on sports."? I agree that any subject that can meet the requirements of WP:N is notable, but you seem to be stating that "major athletic venues, including those at major universities with a famous emphasis on sports" are always notable, and exempt from being evaluated against the criteria of WP:N and specifically the limitations imposed by WP:ROUTINE.

::For me it's really simple: If there was coverage on the stadium itself, instead of events occurring at the stadium, then it would be notable. Without such coverage, it's not. And I have not seen, nor been shown, such coverage. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

: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.