Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zemun 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. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Zemun Stadium

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and notability tagged for 12 years), is unsourced now, and I'm seeking a redirect to FK Zemun, the second-division team that plays there.   Ravenswing     12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   Ravenswing      12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.   Ravenswing      12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll refrain from voting for now, but this is a 10,000-people stadium built in 1962, so most coverage will be in offline sources. Since FK Zemun fell low in recent years (their own website http://www.fkzemun.rs/ seems defunct), and the stadium is rather decrepit, there is not much recent coverage. Here's what I quickly found, which admittedly does not satisfy GNG:
 * Short coverage in Novosti
 * Short coverage on City official website
 * Stadium DB (not exactly a RS)
 * Zemun--dani davni, dani sadašnji - Volume 2 - Page 95 seems to describe early history, but only snippet view is available.
 * News about an accident (wall collapse) in April 2021
 * No such user (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply: I hadn't found anything myself on my pass a few weeks ago; I did see the wall collapse article, but pretty much all that says is that, well, a wall collapsed. I agree that none of those sources you list constitute significant coverage that meets the GNG, but the purpose of a redirect is to preserve the article's existence against someone finding such sources.   Ravenswing     12:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, in club's monography from 1995 there is whole chapter about this stadium (pages 284-290). I think, that's enough for "significant coverage in reliable sources". Olos88 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is published by the club, yes? Primary source, and thus does not bolster notability.  We need multiple reliable and independent sources.   Ravenswing      21:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This book was reviewed by three reviewers (see last page) and was written by well-recognized local historian, author of more than 50 books related to Zemun. Olos88 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the question. A club publication is a primary source, and therefore while it can be held reliable for statements of fact, cannot be used to support the notability of the subject.    Ravenswing      13:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, we have to do here with peer-revieved source, written by subject's specialist, so there should not be any dispute over neutrality, point of interest, advertising, etc. Clearly a whole chapter in such book indicates the notability of the stadium. Second, the club was only a co-publisher, along with "TRAG" publishing (see last page). Third, this is a municipality stadium, which was build on the initiative of local Socialist Alliance of Working People, the club is only the tenant. Olos88 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The BBC -- which is pretty much the gold standard of reliable sources -- has been rejected as a source contributing to notability of their own journalists. Primary sources are disqualified, period.   Ravenswing      19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was just partly published by the club, and, if (as it was numerously pointed in last stadiums AfD's) notability of the club is not inherited for a stadium, then you should also admit, that a source related to the club is not a primary source for the stadium. Olos88 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get to "admit" anything that's contrary to the provisions of the GNG. "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." (emphasis mine) We would be having fewer of these conversations if you took the time to go over the GNG, with you already conceding you weren't very familiar either with its elements or how notability differs on the en-wiki from the pl-wiki.   Ravenswing      22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When local historian is writing a monography about the club, then it is very likely that the club would participate/help in that work. It doesn't have to necessarily affect the neutrality or independence of the work. Anyway, if you still refuse to accept that source, in 1989 the same author wrote "Hronika Zemunskog sporta" ("Chronicle of Zemun's sport"). Unfortunately I can't find the whole book online, but according to the table of content, there is a whole chapter about football venues in the municipality, where we are very likely to find significant coverage about this stadium as it is by far the largest sporting facility in Zemun. Olos88 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - former top tier stadium. GiantSnowman 12:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly take a look at NARENA, which is linked at the top of this page, and explicitly states that the level of competition that may or may not have taken place at a stadium has no bearing on notability.   Ravenswing     13:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to note you created the redirect WP:NARENA 6 hours prior to this AfD. The redirect right now acts as WP:NSPORT because your edit got reverted. – The Grid  ( talk )  04:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the biggest and best known stadiums in the country, long standing stadium for Yugoslav League and Serbian Superliga, enough sources. The article was taken to AfD just to illustrate a point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage noted in this AfD is sufficient to pass GNG. This is what I was concerned about when I reluctantly supported NARENA - the vast majority of these venues are still going to pass GNG, and I supported NARENA conditional on mass AfD's like this not happening, similar to the warning that was issued when the schools RfC came out a few years ago. Clearly that was too optimistic of me. Smartyllama (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NARENA has nothing to say on the subject of arenas and stadiums. The section link is broken and no other section covers the topic. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and easily so - former top flight stadium which has also hosted notable concerts. It is hard to search for because of its relatively common name (city stadium in/of Zemun), and if the BEFORE search was limited to "Zemun Stadium" I can clearly see how this got to AfD. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:03, 18 December 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.