Talk:Spruce Meadows

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Merger of ATCO Field

Withdrawn. – Levivich 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose ATCO Field be merged with and redirected to this article, Spruce Meadows. The reasons are detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATCO Field, which was closed as keep with the closer explicitly indicating merger should be discussed on the talk page. In short: ATCO Field is a stadium at Spruce Meadows, and the coverage doesn't support notability independent of the parent facility sufficient for a stand-alone article. Even if such notability existed, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, because both articles are so short, it would serve the reader to have the information all at one place. --Leviv ich 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the venue weren't notable, it would have been deleted following the closed review. That was the review's purpose. It is clearly notable under Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability as it is home to a professional sports team. The discussion here is whether it should be merged with Spruce Meadow. I am against a merger. A solid amount of new content has been added to the ATCO Field article which is independent from coverage on Spruce Meadow. Quoting myself from ATCO Field's Talk Page, "Quite a bit of the information on this page now is unique from Spruce Meadows. In fact, some of the information appeared first on the ATCO Field article and was copied onto Spruce Meadows, not vise-versa. Allow me to show you two photos for comparison. This is a photo of the equestrian facilities. As we can see ATCO Field is a distinct and sizeable sporting arena in its own right. These two pictures posted by Cavalry FC's supporter's group [1] [2] demonstrate that it is a distinct stadium hosting a fully-professional, top flight team.--Gri3720 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Here is another article referring to ATCO Field at Spruce Meadows, demonstrating that the name ATCO Field and Spruce Meadows are not one-in-the-same and interchangeable if you take away the naming rights. My hometown team is Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC. We often say, "We're going to Station Square to watch the 'Hounds tonight." We say this even though the team plays at Highmark Stadium which is located in the larger Station Square mixed entertainment destination."--Gri3720 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)--Gri3720 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the reason stated above for merger is that "coverage doesn't support notability independent of the parent facility" - however there was no consensus that is the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATCO Field. How the two articles were developed is irrelevant. Nfitz (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We just went through an AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATCO Field) While I argued that they should probably in a single article, WP:CONSENSUS was that there is enough for a stand-alone article for this subject and so I support that. Having seen the number of articles that discuss this field to some extent, I'm starting to think that had the deletion discussion discussion occurred a month or so earlier, it would have gone the other way, but now, there's no reason to turn back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz Thank you for the thoughtful response.--Gri3720 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that confuses the heck out of me, but withdrawn. – Levivich 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.