Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żyleta


 * 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Żyleta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not even a stadium, not even an existing stadium, but a "section" of a "former" stadium. I attempted to do a redirect, but it was reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete this! Żyleta is not a section in the former stadium, but it is an existing stand in the new stadium. It is more than a stand, it is a synonym of spontaneous and eager football support of Legia fans. It has its own history, distinct from the stadium itself. The redirection to the stadium definition was a misunderstanding. If you have any idea about Polish football fans environment, you would know that Żyleta is an independent, long-time identified concept, which deserves to be seperately recognized by Wikipedia. Moreover, the existence of this definition is coherent with the Polish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) August 27, 2011


 * If what you are saying is correct and the topic meets the notability standards of the English Wikipedia (not the Polish Wikipedia), then please add reliable, independent sources to the article that show that notability. Unless such sources are provided, the article should be deleted.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see two references, seems good enough for this stub to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to article about stadium. Only reference is to website of football team whose fans frequented that section of the stadium.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject seems notable, per Wdztony (see also pl wiki article). Reliable references (in Polish) are provided. Yes, they are bare and need formatting, and the entire article is the traditional poor stub, but well, this is what stubs are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Polish Army Stadium. GiantSnowman 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that in case of many other sport stadiums, some specific stands also have their independent definitions (see for example Stretford End in the Old Trafford stadium). Why in those other cases, the particular stand may satisfy the notability requirements and not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Redirect to the stadium.  Argyle 4 Life  talk  15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not notable? References have been provided, and just check pl:Żyleta (Legia Warszawa) to see that the article can be destubbed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see only one reliable, independent source. Certainly the football club's own website can't be considered an independent source, can it?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So? One good source seems enough for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not good enough for the English Wikipedia. We require independent reliable sources (plural) to establish notability.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But there are plural independent reliable sources. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that this is a section of a stadium is immaterial - in substance this is no different then an article like Dawg Pound (or should that be redirected to Cleveland Browns Stadium also?), it's just not in US or UK so the AfD might suffer from cultural bias, where people vote based on a "I haven't heard of it therefore it's not notable", which is NOT a good reason for deletion/redirect. Here's another source: . The sections and the fans have also been part of political controversy, here's another reliable source: . I could keep looking but they're not that hard to find and at this point there's something like 4 or 5 sources for this, which should be more than enough to keep this article (as separate).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's more sources: (note the name "Zyleta" can also refer to fans),, , .Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have expanded the article a little and added two new and reliable sources (links to Gazeta Wyborcza and Eurosport articles). I intend to expand the definition systematically (I don't have so much free time), so it can meet the Wikipedia criteria more fully. So far, please understand, that Żyleta is an independent notion from the stadium. It is a part of the stadium, but it also refers to a cultural and social phenomenon. It has been part of political controversy, as Volunteer Marek mentioned. I (and hopefully other users) will describe this phenomenon more broadly in time. Wdztony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because multiple, independent reliable sources have been provided, some of which I've read using Google Translate. That doesn't do anywhere as good a job with Polish to English as it does with Spanish or German to English, but I could get the general drift. Thanks to the editors who provided the references, and good wishes.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bringing to the English wikipedia well researched pieces such as this, for which there are virtually no sources in English is, I feel, what makes wikipedia exceptional: the subject is notable and wikipedia is probably the first English source to mention it. Good addition to the Polish Army Stadium, which will otherwise risk to be too long.Divide et Impera (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Off topic comment: well said. Sometimes, articles like this make Wikipedia not only the first, but also the last and the most comprehensive possible source in English on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This was the version when I brought it to AfD. Hardly "well researched".  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and close this discussion: I think that at this point the debate whether to delete the article may be closedWdztony.
 * While I agree with that, please do not vote more than once per discussion. Please also sign your posts correctly. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm just the beginner. Still learning may way around here Wdztony (talk)
 * AfD didscussions run seven days. Early close would be inappropriate.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not less notable than Dawg Pound. — Kpalion(talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (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.