Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTRGV Soccer and Track & Field Complex


 * 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 Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros. Daniel (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

UTRGV Soccer and Track & Field Complex

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - It does have enough in-depth coverage, there are primary and secondary sources. It is a relevant soccer stadium in the U.S., so it should not be deleted --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros or Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros men's soccer or any other valid destination - does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD as even the references in primary sources are trivial; this stadium does not have significant coverage in independent sources and stadia are not exempt from meeting notability guidelines Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros, as it is used for multiple sports there (men and women's soccer as well s track & field) so that is most appropriate target. GiantSnowman 19:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * u|GiantSnowman but if it is a multi-purpose stadium, it should be kept as an actual page instead of a redirect --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being multi-purpose has no relevance to any inclusion criteria. My town school has a 'multi-purpose stadium' in that it hosts rugby, football, athletics and many other sports and can cater for up to 300 or so spectators for events but it wouldn't justify a stand-alone article and any routine coverage and info about it would be, at best, a couple of lines in an article on the school... Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * u|Spiderone, ok, that makes sense, but a redirect does nothing to provide the audience with actual information. Someone looking for information about the stadium would be disappointed if they just saw a redirect - Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two could be added at Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros about the stadium, which is probably all that is needed. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep All the teams in the league have the stadium articles. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No that's not true at all, New Mexico State Aggies, Utah Valley Wolverines, Chicago State Cougars and many others do not have articles. Notability is not inherited so the fact that some colleges might have a notable stadium does not mean that all college stadiums across the entire USA are automatically notable. Your assertion that we are singling this one stadium out is also false as there have been at least six up for AfD recently and that's just the US ones. There have also been many Spanish non-notable stadiums up for deletion with the exact same rationale, which is that there is simply no evidence that they meet GNG or NBUILD. This discussion is about this particular stadium so unless someone can prove that this stadium meets criteria, it is not notable. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros. There is nothing special about this complex (not historic, important or very large) and it does not pass WP:GNG. All keep votes are based on the assertion that stadia of teams in such a league are presumed to be notable. However, they fail to show a policy/guideline/essay that suggests such a consensus. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2021 (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.