Glengall Road (football ground): I redirected this to 1885–86 Millwall Rovers F.C. season , as this ground was only used for that season, and most of the article is about the season and not about the utterly unremarkable ground, "a piece of wasteland, which was roughly marked out as a football pitch", anyway.  Whatever needs to be said about the ground can easily be included in the season article.  Fram ( talk ) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England .  Fram ( talk ) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article is sourced, it's straight forward and to the point of what it is. I don't see a reason to delete it.  If anything, I can see some room for improvement.  There maybe other sources out there.  Govvy ( talk ) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just created the article and was in the process of expanding it and nine minutes later it was deleted.  There are numerous other defunct football grounds ( List of defunct English football stadiums ) that were 'wasteland', parks or barely played on which have minimal articles, such as Athletic Grounds (Blackpool) and Abbs Field .  West Ham's temporary ground Browning Road has its own article and was played on for just two months and hasn't been merged into 1896–97 Thames Ironworks F.C. season , so why single out Glengall Road?  Most grounds before 1900 were wasteland or 'unremarkable', so I'm not sure why a clubs' humble beginnings is a deletion policy.  It is of historical significance as it's Millwall's first ground and establishes their foundation.  If you give me more time to research the ground I can expand the article.  TheLostBoy ( talk ) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are fine - there's no such deletion policy.  Assuming it can be documented, then this would be notable, and looks too extensive to merge.  The policy failure here is by User:Fram who should know better than redirecting and AFDing an article that is in progress minutes after creation (especially after they've been notified it is in progress); the AFD violates C.2 of WP:BEFORE which says " If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article ".  Some book and/or article references would help the WP:GNG case; I added one from a 1909 London paper.  Nfitz ( talk ) 00:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect - this is a well written and sourced article, but when you dig into it, none of it is about the stadium itself. As such, we don't need a standalone article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect per GS. All of the sources are almost entirely about the team rather than about the stadium itself. There isn't significant coverage specifically about the stadium to show it passes WP:GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ​Since the article was nominated I’ve added​ ​info on the pitch, its dimensions and condition​. W​​here players would chang​e, w​here fans would stand​, and h​ow many fans attended games​. I ​c​orrected when the ground opened and who it was​ ​against​, and I ​added when it closed and who ​the last game was ​played ​against. I marked the coordinates of where it would stand today and what stands there now​. I added a map from the era showing the road name changes from the current map​ and ​the distance from their second ground​. I added a newspaper quote on the ground from the era​.​ If you remove the little information I added about the formation of the club and the team, there is no context why they’re playing in the middle of an industrial estate or why they needed to move. Featured article North Road, Manchester , Man United's first ground, includes similar info. This is 1885 with minimal sources and info that wasn’t recorded, or has since been lost. The only info on this ground online is the repeated “Millwall were founded on a piece of wasteland on Glengall Road in 1885”. This article provides more significant historical info about it than anywhere else. It has authoritative sources from historians, reputable newspapers and government sources. No original research, as per WP:GNG . The article is notable as to why Millwall is called Millwall. This was the only ground they played at in the district of Millwall. This would all be lost in a redirect. TheLostBoy ( talk ) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a tough one. Although this is an excellent article that clearly adds something to the encyclopedia, we still need to ensure the article meets GNG. I think it probably does, but I can't quite find the evidence yet. And I want to ensure this well-written article has a great policy-based reason for keep. The two book sources look very good, but I would like to know how different they are. They have very similar titles and one of the same authors. TheLostBoy can you confirm they are totally separate books? Let's take a look at the online sources (sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to do a proper table) to see if they help the article meet GNG. 6 talks about the location without mentioning the club, 7 I'm unable to find the specific article in the newspage TheLostBoy can you help me out?, 8 may not be RS?, 11 doesn't mention the ground by name and is the club's own site so probably doesn't contribute to notability, 15 is one sentence about the ground and 16 is only a couple of sentences about the club's time at the ground. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 12:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ​Thanks for the kind words! Millwall: A Complete Record 1885-1991 by Lindsay (1991) was written by a club historian. Millwall: The Complete record by Tarrant (2010) is a completely separate book but used Lindsay’s as a basis to update, correct and go much more in depth into all aspects of the club and is referred to as the 'official record'.  I used 6 to reference the road name change from Glengall Road to Tiller Road/Glengall Grove.  I didn’t add 7 .  I did sign up to research on there but have used up my free article views.  Nfitz added it, maybe they could help?  I can remove 11 if you don't think reliable.  He is a Millwall historian and had helped with numerous corrections on wikipedia before.  Moved 8 to correct reference point, stating when and who the club was founded by.  As you can tell by 15 and 16 , references to the club at Glengall Road is scarce.  Do a google search and there really is the same regurgitated sentence or two, usually from what I added myself on Millwall F.C. .  This part of the clubs history at the ground is lost online.  The meat and bones is in the books.  I'm trying to get ahold of Millwall Football Club 1885-1939 , and a couple of others to gather more info on this elusive ground and Millwall's other three on the Isle of Dogs.  But it will take time to do this.  I got Millwall and Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry both good article status, so I hope you know this page is in good hands.  Thanks for taking the time.  Much appreciated!  TheLostBoy ( talk ) 16:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think any of the sources need removing, if they were the only thing there, they might not be enough to prove GNG.  But I think it's looking good overall.  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there is enough for a standalone article.  There are some solid details about the ground itself and these were provided in two different books along with some other sources.  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 01:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I see opinion here split between Keep and Redirect with lots of discussion (which is refreshing to see).  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There appears to be enough content about this ground to write a decent article and pass WP:GNG .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The ground appears to pass GNG, albeit not by much, and the article is a bit bloated with non-ground coverage.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:44, 22 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep