Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borg El Arab Stadium

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. Akirn (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borg El Arab Stadium

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

No references or sources have been added since October 2008. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. There are lots of online sources so I have added one that looks quite reliable. And I also added the AfD notice to the article. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly a white elephant, but appears to be of enough note. More referencing is probably needed, and also making the prose a bit less turgid. I feel the article tells me more than I really want to know, but the extra info might be of interest to those who enjoy it. Peridon (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from anything, I don't really see a legitimate reason for deletion in the nomination.--Beloved Freak 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work, but there are reliable sources showing it's notable. First Light (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs up to date sources but no need for deletion. --MicroX (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with (Peridon), the article has too much details that are most likely not necessary. Any way, I vote to keep the article and I personally will try (already did but will continue) to edit and improve it. Osa osa 5 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2010 (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.