Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Atlanta Braves 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 keep. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

New Atlanta Braves stadium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Stadium that has yet to be built doesn't even have a name. ...William 17:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions....William 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Ths debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions....William 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Neither of those apply. TOOSOON talks about actors and films where there are no sources. There are sources from USA Today, Forbes, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sports Illustrated, Los Angeles Times, Businessweek, Washington Post, and I could go on. WP:HAMMER doesn't apply here either. It talks about WP:CRYSTAL-ball issues, whereas here we have facts on location, projected cost, capacity, etc. Naming rights will be sold closer to the date the stadium opens. New Falcons Stadium is a similarly unbuilt stadium in Atlanta that is notable. Brooklyn Dodgers proposed domed stadium is an unbuilt and unnamed stadium from 50 years ago, and also notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing doesn't matter for Too Soon. Future Movies/television shows, Concert tours, books, all without titles fall under Too Soon. We're 3 plus years out from something at the moment. There's going to be the Formula One season in 2017, but articles on it have been deleted repeatedly as Too Soon. An stand alone article is premature here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a sports season that we know is going to happen, but have no specific info on. This is a proposed structure that has sufficient information and sourcing for us to go on. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep... per Muboshgu.. though I have to add that I think it is ridiculous that the Braves are building a new stadium already.. the last one didn't open that long ago. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily meets GNG in receiving significant coverage in reliable sources, and coverage not likely to be temporary, unless the deal completely falls through in the next week or so. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. Even if the stadium is never built (for whatever reason), there are enough reliable sources on the subject that it will still be notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why the Braves are already wanting to build a new stadium, I don't even know, but reliable sources have been provided, and are available. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 18:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough sources here, and most stadiums don't have names until a few months before. TOOSOON and HAMMER apply mainly to media and acting articles, not sports venues and even then there will certainly be enough critical coverage to fill this article for sure.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Big news item right now; this stadium has a proposed date to be built by (2017)...I see two different Los Angeles Stadium & Farmers Field that have articles that don't even have a proposed built date let alone a proposed breaking ground date. If those two are notable enough to not be deleted, than this surely passes the test as well Prizby (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The question is the availability of reliable and verifiable sources and that standard is met, while the lack of an official name is hardly justification for deletion. The article for MetLife Stadium had been titled "New Meadowlands Stadium" for years before the naming rights were sold. The "move" function readily deals with such issues. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a brand new page, covering a major development for a large market professional sports team. This will probably be one of the more visible pages in Wikipedia for a while, and the effort to delete it the very day that the story broke leaves a scent of vandalism.Will102 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. WilliamJE does a lot of great work on Wikipedia and nom'd this for deletion for the right reasons. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, AfD is a strange place to go for vandalism. Any good-faith edit, regardless of anything else involved, is not vandalism. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons above. Dwscomet (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Large, factual development for a notable MLB team, and consider all the other "proposed" ideas on Wikipedia that never happened but still have pages. Airplanegod (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not based on speculation, but an announcement by the team. If anything, it is too soon to delete. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, leaning toward speedy keep This stadium is already confirmed to be built, and the sourcing could not possibly be better. The nom's arguments aren't even remotely convincing. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:14, 11 November 2013 (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.