Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estadio Universitario Eugenio Alvizo Porras

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 delete. The two editors arguing to keep both assert that sources exist, but don't give any specific examples. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Universitario Eugenio Alvizo Porras[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to me to meet notability guidelines; couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources Pariah24 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a sports venue, mentioned in many news articles. Whether or not we have sources providing in-depth coverage about this place, the stub article provides a focus and allows for growth, serves readers looking it up. --do ncr am 17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stadiums of this size (and usually smaller) tend to find enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG and I see no reason to cut this one. Probably be a stub, but so be it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 634 results on Google, and no substantial coverage of the stadium itself found in Google News searches. Both "keep" votes provide no arguments for keeping. One claims the stadium is mentioned in the news often. That's probably true, but isn't relevant to WP:GNG; trivial mentions in connection with specific sports teams/events do not support notability. The other claims some type of presumptive notability with no backing from any sources, and that's just not supported by any guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have to actually read why it's an argument to avoid. It's bad to look at Google hits or even Google News results on subjects that are highly specialized and unlikely to be found in a search engine. That is not the case here. If this stadium were notable, there would be news articles about it online. There are not. There's no evidence of substantive cover in the sense of WP:GNG anywhere on Google, Google News, in the article, or provided in the deletion discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's still not a reason to delete, simply not necessarily a reason to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "There's no substantive coverage on this topic" is quite clearly a reason to delete. See WP:GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BU Rob13. Without real evidence of significant coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG. Permastubs are unsatisfactory articles. Without reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage on a subject, there simply isn't enough information to write about that would be verifiable. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are hardly any good sources for the stadium. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is not ready now, but maybe in the future when this gets more coverage, we can reconsider. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:48, 9 September 2017 (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.