From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Mississippi College Choctaws football. While a pure head count might at first seem a "no consensus" result, the "keep" arguments did not persuasively and specifically address the arguments that there is a dearth of significant reliable and independent material about this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Robinson-Hale Stadium

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Robinson-Hale Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no reason that I can find that this stadium would be independently notable of Mississippi College and/or Mississippi College Choctaws football. The stadium appears to fail all aspects of WP:NBUILDING. As a result, I propose that this be redirected to Mississippi College Choctaws football, where the stadium can be appropriately covered without the need for a separate article. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I created the article before adding the sources, I since then had added. The article is a Wikipedia:Stub acknowledging the general stats and info of the stadium. I created the article as well because 98 other articles link to the stadium and growing. If the standard is not set up correctly, then there are several "stadium" articles that have less if not nothing on their page to be worthy of its own page. Keep for now. -- Jpp858 ( talk) 03:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with sources on the field renovation in the article, plus a simple google search n the news shows that the stadium's reach is far beyond just the school's football program. It's typical for college football stadiums to have their own article and the nature of news coverage on sports shows that stadiums produce more than enough coverage to surpass the general notability guideline. For more details, see essay WP:CFBSTADIUM-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I second the above comment by User:Paulmcdonald, this article is certainly a stub but I believe it includes enough citations to appear reliable and notable. The football program, being an NCAA D2, is certainly notable enough to have a stand-alone article of the stadium. As User:Jpp858 mentions, 98 articles link to the stadium, which makes it seem foolish to delete this page. Porter land 05:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The "98" linking articles is a red herring which is driven by the stadium having been added (within the past week) as links on several templates such as Template:Mississippi college football venues, Template:Southwestern Athletic Conference football venue navbox, and Template:Mississippi College Choctaws football navbox. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. I searched extensively in Newspapers.com and came up empty in terms of WP:SIGCOV (even as to the dedication in 1985). Moreover, the sources cited in the article lack WP:INDEPENDENCE and/or WP:DEPTH. The referenced sources about the 2015 turf replacement are both word-for-word reprints of a press release issued by the athletic department (one of the sources here explicitly cites "GoChoctaws.com" as the true source of the content). Accordingly, I come up completely empty in terms of SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. In a case like this, where the stadium for a Division II program fails GNG, a paragraph on the stadium added to the main article on Mississippi College Choctaws football will suffice. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, where are the users commenting on these other stadium articles. See GSC football venue navbox or the CIAA football venue navbox any many more that is DIV-II ( Harvey Randall Wickes Memorial Stadium), I could also pull many DIV-I articles as well (i.e. Buccaneer Field). I created this article and included more sources than many out there, I didn't add the sources at first and had since added. I am okay with a redirect (like i.e. Tom Adams Field), but are we going to go around the Wikipedia and redirecting all the articles that don't have a reliable source or focus just on one main one, whereas this article features several? -- Jpp858 ( talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Jpp858: The AfD process can seem random. There's nothing scientific about which articles get nominated and which ones don't. Don't take it personally. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Cbl62: Not taking it personally, but should hold other articles to the same standard. -- Jpp858 ( talk) 17:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
If this article is deleted you can also take those to AfD (although be sure to avoid doing so for WP:POINT, having said that, I know that at times I nominate articles for AfD because I've come across them via random article and I therefore don't end up on other articles. I definitely understand the frustration of A being nominated when X, Y, and Z all have articles. I honestly at times wish for more WP:BUNDLE so it seems less arbitrary, but also you want to avoid WP:TRAINWRECK (or its more profane sibling), so it's a balance. snood1205( Say Hi! (talk)) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: Kind of surprised. Where are you finding the WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources? I have yet to see any. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Mississippi College Choctaws football. This is a perfect example of an article that doesn't have enough to warrant an article but is still worth merging to improve the merge target. Which is pretty lackluster itself and could use the references. Otherwise, someone might decide to split the difference by having them both deleted. Might as well merge this and save the information from both instead. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep': On balance I would keep, its the most logical place to keep the contents for ease of our readers.-- Milowent • has spoken 18:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge I agree that it fails WP:NBUILDING,but other than that it's all good. Wp9097 ( talk) 01:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Wp9097: Can you clarify what you mean by "other than that it's all good"? Do you believe it passes GNG? I have yet to see even one example of WP:SIGCOV. Why do you believe this is a GNG pass? Cbl62 ( talk) 10:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keeping this article separate feels most logical to me. I feel the sourcing is sufficient. A merge to Mississippi College Choctaws football doesn't make sense as the stadium has a running track and is used for non-football events. NemesisAT ( talk) 10:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per WP:ATD. The sourcing comes nowhere close to meeting any notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG; most sources are not independent of the subject (including several press releases), and the few that are do not contain any significant coverage – all but one do nothing more than confirm the stadium exists, it's name and who it was named after, and who plays there. Unable to find anything that would change that. wjemather please leave a message... 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge "Stadium" is a stretch...it's a generic field with a grandstand, not an enclosed or fully-surrounded arena. I don't see substantive coverage about the place itself. Having running events there too does not mean this can't be covered at the football article. Reywas92 Talk 20:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge While college football stadiums at the Division I level will generally pass GNG, that is not what we're talking about here, this is a Division II college football stadium. Most coverage of college football, and by extension the venues it takes place, is of Division I. There are numerous articles, books, even about Division I college football stadiums, while DII gets much less coverage. Despite some people attempting to use this AfD as a referendum or proxy for the notability of college football stadiums in general, that is not what we should be doing here. The question is whether this particular college football stadium is notable. And I'm not seeing that it is. I'd strongly caution other !voters against using this AfD as evidence of a more general consensus against college football stadium notability, particularly as it applies to higher levels, but in this case GNG is not met. Smartyllama ( talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Please click the recommended news link for just a glance at the records of the stadium in just the "current news" cycle. There's also significant coverage among the sources in the article itself.
I searched at length and could not find any SIGCOV. Can you provide a couple examples of what you found? As noted above, the pieces in the article now about installing new field turf are reproductions of a school press release and not independent. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robinson-Hale_Stadium&oldid=1059673022"