Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infonet Lasnamäe Stadium


 * 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 redirect to FCI Tallinn. While Smartyllama makes a compelling argument for keeping the article, it's clear that editors who have commented on this Afd (post Smartyllama's comments) have tended towards a consensus of redirect. Hence, redirecting this article and am closing this Afd. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Infonet Lasnamäe Stadium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was No indication this stadium meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

*Redirect per GiantSnowman. Agree it's a reasonable search term, but there's no indication it meets WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't realize that virtually every First Division side in the entire world has an article. Changing vote to Keep. If nominator believes first division stadiums are not inherently notable, picking them off one by one is not the solution. Start an RfC or something. Thanks to for pointing this out. Smartyllama (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to FCI Tallinn as possible search term but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 17:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. My issue is with this article, and this article only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So this article, and this article alone, out of the thousands of articles about first division soccer stadiums everywhere in the world, should be deleted? Is that seriously what you're saying. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're misunderstanding is that I'm not arguing the notability of this subject in relation to others, but on own merits alone. Whether or not other similar subjects have received significant coverage, has no bearing on the fact that this one has not. There's a reason that other stuff exists (or doesn't exist) is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify why you don't think a stadium in the capital city of a European country for the 2016 champions is noteworthy? GrimRob —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated in the nomination, there is no indication this stadium has received significant coverage, meaning it does not meet the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Every significant football team has a separate page for their ground, and it's in the template for a football team. GrimRob —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  06:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - a plausible search term, I have already migrate the small amount of content there. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge the few bits about stadium capacity, being 600 with 100 standing ect, At the moment it says on the club article a capacity of 500. It's really not necessary with so little information to be on it's own article, when a stadium merits it's own article it must be a fair size, have historical importance and a contribution to a wider community. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2017 (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.