Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chornomorets Stadium (1936)


 * 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   delete. Please use Redirects for discussion for further discussion, since no consensus regarding the redirects was attained here.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chornomorets Stadium (1936)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Content was merged into the new stadium's article. BaboneCar (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also want to nominate for deletion related pages. Alex (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as it hosted top-flight football for decades. Notability is not temporary and there are other examples of articles about old stadia that were demolished and rebuilt (e.g Wembley Stadium (1923) and Wembley Stadium). Keresaspa (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not good comparison. Look at the size of articles about Wembley Stadium and at the size of this one. Alex (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All it takes is somebody who can read the sources in Ukrainian (you, for example) to improve this one. Incidentally even if a merger is gone ahead with what purpose is served by deleting this when it could easily be converted to a redirect? Similarly there is no reason to delete the four redirects you nominated as part of this which, strictly speaking, should be taken to Redirects for discussion instead of here. Merge and redirect I could accept but merge then delete is contrary to Redirect
 * Keep per above, or possibly redirect to Chornomorets Stadium if the two stadiums can be covered in one article. The other pages listed are all redirects - are these former names for the same stadium? 109.154.73.118 (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.Information is covered in one article. 2.There is no reason to redirect this page to Chornomorets Stadium because no pages links to Chornomorets Stadium (1936). 3.The other pages listed are incorrect or outdated names of the stadium. Alex (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. There is no policy which specifies that redirects have to be linked from another article. 3. Outdated names - so what? So are Walkers Stadium, Eastlands Stadium and Ashburton Grove to name but three. Notability is not temporary and old names might be searched for. Those that you believe to be wrong should go to Redirects for discussion. Keresaspa (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge all information. Same stadium as before because it is on the same site, with the same name. Many modern stadiums have had its stands torn down completely and subsequently rebuilt. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Information has already been merged. Alex (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete.Information was transferred to the new article. Alex (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete in favor of Chornomorets Stadium, provided that the information here was properly merged there. I don't know that this is a reasonable redirect, given that you'd need to know the year. But redirects are cheap, and a redirect here would also preserve the history. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, on the topic of the other redirects - Keep All. As I said, redirects are cheap, and former names for a venue are absolutely appropriate as redirects. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Three of this redirects are incorrect names of the stadium and only one is a former name. Alex (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should probably sort that out, then - which is which? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The stadium was previously called "Central Stadium Chornomorets", others – incorrect names. Alex (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all redirects - source for Black Sea Steamship‎ and Stadion Tsentralnyi Chornomorets‎ and source for Prokopenko Arena. They might not be common or even official names but none of them are incorrect and as UltraExactZZ so rightly said redirects are cheap. Keresaspa (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all redirects."Black Sea Steamship" – even according to your website its nickname.But nobody call the stadium Black Sea Steamship. "Stadion Tsentralnyi Chornomorets‎" – incorrect translation. "Prokopenko Arena" – information on that website is incorrect. The stadium was never called "Prokopenko Arena". Provisional title was "Chornomorets Stadium named after Victor Prokopenko"(shortly "Prokopenko Arena").But this title was declined. So 3 of this redirects are INCORRECT and all are unused. Alex (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nicknames are fine. Theatre of dreams goes to Old Trafford for example. Incorrect translation Stadion Tsentralnyi Chornomorets might be but you shouldn't assume everybody who uses Wikipedia knows how to translate Ukrainian properly (I sure don't) and if it is used on external websites it is a plausible search term. The same argument applies to Prokopenko Arena as does WP:V as verifiability is preferable to truth. You might know something to be untrue but if source say otherwise they win (not my rule and not one I think is perfect but it's the rule nonetheless. There are things about my hometown on here that I know to be false but they are sourced and our own personal knowledge is not a reliable source, no matter how true we know it to be). Redirects are cheap and unless they are completely ludicrous they should be left alone. Those backed up by outside sources fall into the left alone category. Keresaspa (talk) 01:05, 15 November 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.