Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estadi Mahonés


 * 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   no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Estadi Mahonés

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. It's an orphan. Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Its an orphan" is a statement about other articles, not this one, so is certainly in no way relevant to a deletion discussion. And I see no reason not to merge this to the article on the club that plays at this stadium, CF Sporting Mahonés (as the nominator should have found before nominating), rather than delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The usual "reprimands" at AfD. I did look at the CF Sporting Mahonés article, which says they play at a redlinked Estadio Bintaufa.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be contradicted by the sources found by clicking on the word "news" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that although you complain about me not doing "my work", you haven't taken the trouble to fix the article based on these sources. What's so amazing at these AfDs is those editors who don't seem to care how long unsourced garbagey articles remain on the encyclopedia (this particular article isn't the best example of that). The articles can be tagged for years and be an embarrassment to read, but if one nominates them for deletion, the nominator (not the creator, not the editors who've touched the article since creation) gets shot. Maybe WP:GARBAGE ought to be a standard in addition to WP:N. My rant aside, I have tried to pay closer attention to the complaints of some editors, and I recall doing searches before nominating this article. The Spanish part, of course, didn't help, but, still, I obviously didn't search carefully enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm trying to figure out whether the team CF Sporting Mahones playes at the Estadi Mahones or not. I looked at the website of the team, and found this (Google-translated): "Play their matches at the Estadio Municipal de Mahon, located in the Complex of Bintaufa. It has a capacity of approximately 3,500 spectators and its surface is natural grass. Since its inception, this has always been its stadium." The original Spanish is this: "Disputa sus encuentros en el Estadio Municipal de Mahón, situada en el complexo de Bintaufa. Tiene una capacidad aproximada de 3.500 espectadores y su superficie es de hierba natural. Desde su creación, este ha sido siempre su estadio." Assuming that Estadio Municipal de Mahon is the "Estadi Mahones" and also the structure in the picture in the article, then at a minimum I would think the title should be changed, assuming the team is using the right name for its stadium. More important, let's assume the stadium in the article is the stadium of the team. Does that in and of itself make the stadium notable and deserving of its own article? Unless there is something special about it (independent coverage as a structure), why shouldn't it be merged (redirected as well) to the team's article?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 07:57, 31 December 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) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Question. Why does this keep getting relisted? I suggested merging, the nominator agreed, and nobody else has suggested deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (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.