Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground improvements at English football Stadia


 * 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 to delete. Rather strange nom - a lot of the article clearly isn't WP:CRYSTAL (though some is unsourced). Needs a tidy up, but appears to be a viable article. Black Kite 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ground improvements at English football Stadia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete -  Article is entirely crystal ballery. Also violates WP:NOT as well. I'm requesting deletion of this article on those grounds. --  F.U.R  hurts Wikipedia  16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Distribute into the article about each club - if not already there. Absolutely not crystal ballery - every entry is referenced. But I see no virtue in collating the information. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This page concerns an important part of English football. The projects involved will see billions of pounds spent on them, and they use footnotes stringently. This is not crystal ballery. Nor is it news, as these are long term developments. The articles is providing a linear way of looking at them. If they are in the individual pages, it is harder to do so. When I was looking through the club articles, it was quite frustrating. These area all on one page, and surely they are notable enough to have their own article. Hundreds of thousands of people go to these stadiums on a weekly basis. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - this article is OK. I don' think they're are grounds for deletion. Might want to change the title, and add in all the championship grounds it is missing. I can think of several clubs in the division who have ongoing plans for their stadiums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.29.141 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Struck as user voted keep again below. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:DIRECTORY. Each of these items would be better off in the article about the stadium in question rather than being grouped together in a separate specific article. They're too loosely associated for a stand alone article. SWik78 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article OK like idea of all being in one article and not each clubs article Palmiped (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/Distribute. I don't see grounds for this article to be deleted, it's notable and well-referenced. However, this info might be better off if placed on individual stadia/club articles.   A R  TYOM    21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete but put info in club/stadium articles first. I really don't see the need for this information to be grouped together in one place like this. – PeeJay 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - where the news is actually concrete rather than just speculation, it is already on the club's page which is where it should be. No encyclopaedic need for spin-off article like this. - fchd (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Ban  Ray  10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per fchd, inclusions such as the expansion to the Kassam Stadium may never happen. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't really think the case for deletion has been made. This is notable subject, and it is well referenced. Where stadiums are unlikely to happen, but a possibility exists, this is mentioned and noted. It clearly isn't crystal ball stuff. As for its notabillity, it is surely more relevant and interesting than some other football related lists on Wikipedia such as List of foreign Premier League players or even List of foreign football players in A PFG. This list is about ongoing projects at existing grounds used by large numbers of spectators. I do think it would be better to try and improve this article, by making it more about the phenomena of ground improvments that have taken place since 1992. It should include new stadiums and rebuildings that have occured in the last few years, as well as those currently underway. It is better to have this info on one page, instead of trawling through each individual clubs article. 86.140.29.141 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (but convert to bare list of club article links) - the nom makes a very rude and ill judged case (and should be told so), this is clearly not crystal ballery, and not news as in forgotten tomorrow cruft sense. As already said, these projects can go on for months or years (see Liverpool FC), and are massive. However, I oppose outright keeping as I severely doubt the article can be maintained as is, and is essentially duplication of club article content, BUT, it is highly usefull to keep the name of all clubs with plans or ongoing projects in one place (any delete voter is free to suggest how else this info can be found on WP without looking at all 92 club pages and beyond). If it was stripped to a bare list of club article wikilinks per division with verified plans/ongoing projects, and no text, it would be a highly valuable addition to the pedia. I would have suggested a category instead, but I know from experience it would never survive the purists at Cfd. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is value in this information being collated on one page, as well as on each stadiums page. This enables people who are interested in football stadium construction and expansion to see the situation in England as a whole. I fail to see how each clubs plans are only "loosely associated", when they are all english (and welsh) stadiums. Even if there are a few proposals that may never happen, it is not crystal-balling to mention them if there are references to official club statements saying they have plans. There are a great many people around the world interested in new stadiums, stadium expansions, and proposals - see the sports arenas section at skyscrapercity.com for example. Willy turner (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hardly encyclopedic knowledge. Just because a page can be created doesn't mean it should. The article acts as more of a construction update or forum rather than an encyclopedia article. If the article is kept however, it needs to be renamed to "Ground improvements at British football Stadia", considering the new Cardiff stadium is featured. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ....there's also no reason for a capital letter on "Stadia" ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...you're right, hadn't noticed that either. Rename should be "Ground improvements at British football stadia" ! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I read this vote right, what you are actually arguing for is the removal of any article content mentioning construction plans, not just against a list consolidating this information. I note no-one has answered how else this information can be found out without reading 92 or more articles. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of English football stadia by capacity, which already contains much of this information. However, before doing so the listings based on mere pie in the sky speculation (e.g. Oxford, Rotherham) should be removed. Only those with concrete construction plans (no pun intended) should be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is mostly cool. It needs improvements. It feels like each entry could be expanded a bit, and it should mention the existing capacity of the stadiums. Mostly it doesnt at the moment. Plus, isnt manchester united planning on expanding old trafford to 96,000? That should be mentioned. 86.140.29.141 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An article cannot be kept simply because it is "cool". If Man U are planning on expanding Old Trafford, then a source will be required before its inclusion anywhere. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Given it's on a club by club basis, should be on club pages. It's crufty, speculative reading like a pithy gossip column. Stadium changes etc into club pages... Minkythecat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends if you are the one interested in the information or not, in this case obviously not, but like it or not, if you read in one club article that by 2009 they will have a capacity of 90000, many editors want to know who else has similar plans. And again, in the club articles this is all written with sources, and need not be 'gossip' as you seem to suggest. But as I said, it only needs to be a list of club links, making it not cruft, but a usefull index for those who want to easily cross reference the information. Or can none of the deleters honestly put their mind into a position where they can see this information is related at all? I seriously don't get it, why should we not index it? What do we actually gain by denying the indexing of related information? MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This isn't an appropriate article for an encyclopaedia, being simply a progressing series of news titbits. The place for this lies in the individual articles and perhaps in the article Oldelpaso suggests. Seeing as the article's author has spent a lot of time on this, and clearly has a passion for it, perhaps it could be put in their userspace, as a resource for other editors? HornetMike (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOT. This isn't an appropriate encyclopedic entry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A little vague to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - An article that is mostly about possible future developments is surely not appropriate, and the article name itself is misleading: the History section, despite being short and lacking citations, is the type of thing I expected to see when I opened this article. Therefore I would salvage any individual club sections to the various club/stadium articles and then delete the article. However I think we do need an article called something like History of English football grounds (if there isn't one already), which would deal with all aspects of the grounds, not just 'improvements' and would take a more holistic view, going back to the 19th Century, not just 1988 onwards. --Jameboy (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, it should as a basic list of clubs with planned developments. There should be no 'possible' about it, and there probably isn't if as I suspect this list was constructed by copy pasting or cribbing from the club articles. So if this list contains 'possibles', then so do the club articles. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete' - as utter listcruft. Discussion of expansion for each stadium can be included on the respective stadium's article, as appropriately cited, but there is no point in collecting them all in one big list. What's next, a comparison of catering facilities or car parks? Qwghlm (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No point? Have you ever discussed football with anyone before? And FYI the list of UEFA 4/5 star stadia is effectively a comparison of catering facilities etc. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, for an Arsenal fan I absolutely don't believe you aren't aware of how often planned expansions between clubs are compared re. the Emirates. But then again maybe that's where this not needed idea comes from, football fans probably know all the plans from memory, and wouldn't see any value in an index. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, actually reading the cruft essay, and related Mfd, I am surprised to see an admin even using the term utter listcruft in an Afd. It's a while since I read that essay, and realised I'd almost sleepwalked into thinking it was a valid guideline, much as it is misused. On reflection, the cruft description has nothing to do with this article at all in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For all of you criticising this page why don't you try and improve it? I know there is a lot of dissent to the article in its current format, but why not try and turn it into a more wikipedified article? I created it in this form as much to start the ball rolling as anything else, but I think there should be something on the recent and future construction/expansion of stadiums. I honestly think this is notable topic, more so than many that are currently included on wikipedia. Even it it is deleted in its current format, it should be recreated in some form on wikipeidia if anything as a history of ground improvments at English/British football stadiums. Before you start slagging it off, you should acknowledge I took quite a lot of time creating this page, and it is not all copied from the individual club pages. This is a genuine article for those interested in English footballLord Cornwallis (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a good job, and it's notable, but the duplication of content is not necessary, and the paragraphs of sourced info here should be in the club articles. A simple brief list of clubs would be a usefull list, but in my experience Afd is a waste of time when trying to convince people to your frame of mind that sees the seeds of a usefull article, when all they see is 'cruft', whatever that might actually mean, you rarely get any meaningful description of this term at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is well referenced, and is of interest to football fans. The references on this article seem to undercut the allegation that this is mere speculation. While the page could be improved, and should, deleting it is a bad idea. And when I said it was a 'cool' page earlier, that meant it was OK by wikipedia standards, not that it was hip. Some of the pro-delete comments on this page seem a little petty and mean spirited. There should be some article on wikipedia on the billions of pounds of work on british football stadiums. Might I also suggest including some of the major projects on welsh, irish and scottish UK grounds and moving the page to "Stadiium Improvments in Britain" it seems to take on a broader perspective. Overall, I cannot see why this article should not remain in some form, even in a bare list index, and once again I would point out that this is surely of more relevance than List of foreign football players in A PFG86.140.29.141 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per FHCD. This information should be either in the stadium articles themselves or in the notes section of List of English football stadia by capacity. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes there's a danger of crystal-ballery but that's true of a huge proportion of our articles. The key is that the contents are generally well referenced and where inappropriate material creeps in it can be fixed. See no reason why the information shouldn't be collected in one place as well as in individual ground articles, as we're hardly likely to run out of paper. Question is, as always, is this a notable topic? Verifiability says it is. I'm therefore unconvinced by the delete arguments. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2008 (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.