The result was keep. with expansion of article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says:
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic(my emphasis).
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that→ Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest.→ Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as
the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody will miss this article– Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. with expansion of article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says:
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic(my emphasis).
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that→ Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest.→ Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as
the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody will miss this article– Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)