Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Green, Christchurch

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green, Christchurch

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

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

No longer notable after the earthquakes. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Queen Elizabeth II Park as AtD.~~ Notability should not be lost once found, but I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV for the Village Green in the first place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede 66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sammyrice:. A NZ cricket topic up for deletion. Are you able to find anything to expand this? AA (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't canvass people to vote. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Traumnovelle:. Where exactly am I canvassing someone to vote? I've tagged an editor with an interest in NZ cricket to see if they can expand the article. Are you mad? AA (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Pinging someone you expect to vote keep is canvassing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Traumnovelle: So you are calling into question the integrity of two long-standing editors? Nowhere am I encouraging him to vote, nor expecting him to. It's his subject area. Or shall we not expand articles? I suggest you take back your bad faith accusation. AA (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – ground is widely covered by The Press with enough coverage elsewhere to meet WP:SIGCOV, the "No longer notable after the earthquakes" is an odd argument. --JP (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpeeling I agree with you that the "no longer notable after the earthquakes" argument is wrong, provided there was notability to begin with, But to the extent the Press articles offer WP:SIGCOV of any facility, they seem to highlight Queen Elizabeth II Park, not the Village Green venue in particular. Do you have sources that show specific coverage of the Village Green versus the broader complex it was part of? Open to switching my !vote but I need to see some SIGCOV of the specific venue rather than the complex it was part of. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources the majority focus on the cricket venue rather than the wider park in general. They do mostly mention the QE2 but I think that's more to define where they are talking about given the generic name of the venue. JP (Talk) 07:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a major ground for 12 years, staging five domestic one-day finals. Sammyrice (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is appropriate to Queen Elizabeth II Park. I read the The Press sources and none are SIGCOV of Village Green but rather of the park or other buildings within the park. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per recent expansion. AA (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into the main QEII article.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 (duplicate of 2) are databases, 4, 6, 9 are passing mentions, 5, 14 don't even talk about the village green, but I think 8, 10, 13 are enough to push to WP:GNG (numbering per Special:PermaLink/1236485715) (struck first !vote). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge. Could the expansion of the article be evaluated to see if it changes any opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion hasn't changed. The sources are either trivial or give greater focus to QEII park or other buildings in the park. I don't see any evidence that the cricket ground has enough coverage for a stand alone article and QEII article isn't so big as to justify a content split. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Queen Elizabeth II Park. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This is a poor rationale for deletion. A venue being presently-demolished or mothballed does not erase the notability of its former use. Never has the closure of a sports venue been reason to delete an article. If it genuinely met notability standards while operating, it is hard to see how its closure would change that. SecretName101 (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once it's notable, it's always notable. It clearly passes GNG and temporary venues can have permanent notability, especially because this wasn't meant to be temporary. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline pass for standalone notability on the sources added to the article; previous vote struck above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 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.