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 Siarka Tarnobrzeg without prejudice against a merger. A week has passed since Star Mississippi reverted her close and relisted the AfD for further discussion, yet I don't see consensus among P&G-based views having shifted away from what we saw at the first close, namely, that existing sources--not just those cited in the article--fail to establish notability per NSTADIUM/GNG. That rough consensus holds even if we take into account views expressed on Star Mississippi's Talk page. Discussions have now been going on for over three weeks, so I see no point in dragging this on any longer. Persistent, belligerent attempts to revert the outcome of an AfD without discussion can be handled by any editor as disruptive edit-warring. Please alert me or any admin if a p-block or semi-protection is required. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium (edit | 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)

Creator claims such small stadiums are inherently notable; I don't think that's true at all. Article was moved back into draft space by User:Mccapra, and creator moved it back to main space twice. Their argument? "The subject is encyclopedic, the article is well-sourced, and there is nothing in it beyond what is present in the Polish-language article." But the first thing is untrue and certainly questionable, the second is ridiculous (the link is to a user-generated database of stadiums), and the first is irrelevant on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the article. Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium may not stand out significantly from other stadiums, but it represents a typical example of local sports infrastructure, much like other stadiums already included in the encyclopedia. To provide context, I reviewed two randomly selected stadiums—Stjörnuvöllur and Akranesvöllur—and found them similarly modest in scale. Deleting Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium based on the argument presented here could set a precedent for removing numerous comparable entries, which doesn’t align with our established approach to such topics. While I understand the concerns raised, I believe the article is well-sourced and falls within the scope of what we consider encyclopedic. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep stadiums are generally notable. The article only has one source, though, that doesn't help with GNG, so we have to do a source search, not a blanket AfD. And what we see is that the stadium has been covered in secondary sources: [1] [2] (looks like the same story) [3] [4] (about hooligans who vandalized it.) Now those may not be a clear GNG pass, but they are all from the past month. It should be relatively easy to write a decent little article about this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again we're missing the point here - since the article was sent to AfD, there's been some expansion with some sources which I think are fine (some don't count like transfermarkt), but more importantly there's at least one site - stadiony.pl - which includes news about the stadium back to 2009, and while some of it is self published others appear to be copies of articles published about the stadium. Polish football is generally well documented and a search of "Stadion Siarki Tarnobrzeg" brings up even more material which clearly clears GNG. There's news going back to 2013 for instance [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all sports stadiums are not notable, and small local stadiums generally aren’t. There is nothing architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive about this one as far as I can see. Most towns have a stadium like this, just like they have a police station and a post office. Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The test isn't about whether they are "architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive." The test is whether they've been covered in secondary sources, and this one clearly has. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with SportingFlyer – notability is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just architectural or cultural significance. I’ve also expanded the article to provide more context, which supports its notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or maybe better merge into Siarka Tarnobrzeg. Per WP:NSTADIUM, stadiums are not generally notable and has to meet WP:GNG criteria. WP:GNG says that "significant coverage is not a guarantee that a subject merits its own article". Currently used sources do not demonstrate notability, and the vandalism articles are not even "significant coverage". The vandalism is not a historical event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper to collect such events of local importance. So I suggest deleting this paragraph and moving the rest to the club as a section, which should satisfy everyone involved. FromCzech (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg as possible search term. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I maintain my stance for KEEP, especially since I have updated the article to include the fact that this stadium hosted Siarka Tarnobrzeg during their three seasons in the top Polish league. This clearly indicates that it is not just an insignificant stadium. Surely, we wouldn't delete the stadium of an Ekstraklasa club – following that logic, we should also consider removing Františka Kloze Stadium (in Czechia), which is also "just a building." I kindly ask you to reconsider your position. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot vote twice. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t. I struck my original !vote. Mccapra (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get it back on the log, longer note TK so I don't break the formatting in the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin/Relist note, I had closed this as redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg. as a viable ATD where both fit together. History is preserved should there be a desire for a merger. however discussion arose at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarnobrzeg_Municipal_Stadium and consensus was that a relist was likely more fruitful than DRV for an error in close and/or factors having changed. I leave this to the next closer as to whether this needs an additional seven days but given the ~ week since closure it's my personal opinion it should run a few days to ensure additional eyes for consensus (of whichever outcome that may be). Star Mississippi 01:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for relisting! I've added additional citations I found about the stadium renovation to the article to show this does indeed pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg as an appropriate WP:ATD. There are now 10 sources on the page but they are all primary sources, and most are not independent of the club. Two new ones have just been added. These are [6] and [7], which do at least speak about the stadium, but are news reports about the modernisation, and thus fall squarely in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. To consider that another way, the question is what makes the stadium notable for its own article and not as a piece of club news. The answer to that cannot be a news report about the progress of the club's modernisation of its stadium. It is, however, worth a mention on the club page, and would enhance that page, which is currently rather short. There are also news articles about fans damaging the stadium. This too is better located on the club page. It is not so much about the stadium itself as about an event in the club history and should not really be separated from that. The remaining sources are not independent, primary and do not speak to the stadium itself. What is missing is anything that a stadium article could be written from. We can't assemble this from club news - there has to be some kind of secondary treatment of the stadium, such as a history or an analysis of why it is notable. We don't have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The new sources include both [8] and [9]. There are no press releases by the club in those articles, it's not the club promoting the stadium, and it even appears as if the municipality owns the stadium, not the club, which is common. I have no idea how you can say they're not independent of the club when the club isn't even mentioned in the articles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I said they were primary sources. News reports (see PRIMARYNEWS). Sources need to be secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I respectfully disagree with @Sirfurboy. The Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium is a venue for the 2025 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, which alone demonstrates its notability. Secondary sources are already emerging, such as this article, showing its recognition beyond routine club matters. The stadium is described in more depth than many others, even down to details like pitch replacement. I’d also note that deletion discussions are not votes. The closing administrator should focus on policy-based arguments and the growing recognition of the stadium, which clearly supports its independent notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the additional source, but it is not a secondary source. It is a two paragraph article reporting the news that work has started to change the turf in the stadium. This is very firmly WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:MILL. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @Sirfurboy, thank you for your thoughtful comments on the Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium discussion. However, I believe your interpretation of WP:PRIMARYNEWS and the notability criteria may be too restrictive in this case. Allow me to explain why the stadium meets the required threshold for its own article.

  1. There are secondary sources present. Contrary to your assertion, the sources are not all primary. Many of them analyze or summarize information originating from primary sources, such as UEFA or MOSiR, thus qualifying as secondary sources. For instance: sources about the stadium’s modernization ([6], [7]) are independent news articles, not club press releases. These sources demonstrate coverage beyond routine club activities. The articles about the vandalism incident ([9], [10]) are also secondary, discussing significant events tied to the stadium itself, not solely the club.

  2: Independent notability. The stadium is a confirmed venue for the 2025 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, which inherently establishes its significance on an international level. This is not a minor event or routine news. Few stadiums achieve recognition of this level, and its selection is a testament to its importance in Polish football infrastructure.

  3. WP:PRIMARYNEWS does not render all news articles primary. It refers to news reports that merely document routine occurrences without broader context. Articles describing major renovations ([6], [7]) and detailed events such as vandalism ([9], [10]) clearly go beyond routine updates and provide meaningful context, making them secondary sources.

  4. The stadium’s infrastructure, history, and upgrades have been covered in sufficient depth. This includes descriptions of the unique pitch orientation, renovations, and its role in international competitions. These are all indicators of notability separate from Siarka Tarnobrzeg. Paradygmaty (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, you are telling me this [10] is a a secondary source. It is 4 paragraphs of news reporting. Paragraphs 1, 2 & 4 are about the team's preparations for the new season. Paragraph 3 tells us that the team are also preparing their stadium. They have prepare the pitch, cleaned the seats and put up a sign for their team. If you do not understand how this is news reporting and thus a primary source, then you have some reading to do. Not to mention that preparing the pitch, cleaning the seats, putting up a team sign and a camera is very much WP:MILL. What stadium would not do these things? This stadium is not notable. If it is not redirected, the page should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment:, still for keep, I respectfully disagree with your argument. The claim that the source is purely news reporting and thus a primary source oversimplifies the situation. It’s important to recognize that the source, while reporting on preparations, also provides context about the stadium's role as a venue for significant events, such as the UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship. This elevates the stadium’s notability beyond routine club matters. Your insistence on reducing it to a trivial, routine update on pitch maintenance ignores the broader significance of the venue’s involvement in an international tournament. Furthermore, this is not a vote, and your selective interpretation of facts to fit your position is problematic. The idea that the stadium's recognition by UEFA and its use in major tournaments would be disregarded in favor of a deletion is not only misguided but would also undermine the credibility of the project's commitment to objective standards of notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your insistence on reducing it to a trivial, routine update on pitch maintenance ignores... No, you keep telling me that the paragraph of trivial maintenance is a secondary source. It isn't. And neither is it SIGCOV. Now this is repetitive. I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your fixation on reducing the discussion to pitch maintenance is perplexing and oversimplifies the broader evidence of the stadium’s notability. This narrow focus detracts from a nuanced evaluation of the topic. Paradygmaty (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while not all sources are notable, there are multiple that are. Way more news coverage is also available within the simplest name search. Respublik (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2024 (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.