- 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hoover Dam in popular culture
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hoover Dam in popular culture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - the article is currently a list of tangential mentions of the dam in pop culture, but WP:AFD is ultimately not WP:NOTCLEANUP and is instead concerned with determining notability. While the article is under-sourced, potential sources like Imaging Hoover Dam: The Making of a Cultural Icon (a print source published by the University of Nevada Press) indicate the topic has be specifically covered enough to meet WP:GNG. Other, less stellar but still adequate sources like Pop Culture Places: An Encyclopedia of Places in American Popular Culture or [1], [2], [3] could also be cited. If the more quality sources are seen in sum with the more tangential mentions of the dam in popular culture, notability is likely established. A re-write with the sourcing that exists is preferable to deletion. SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and clean-up article per sources provided above by SamHolt6. It has lots of unsourced statements, or statements cited with unreliable sources (we're still using IDMb in [insert current year here]?), so re-writing this article with the books and academic literature provided above would be great! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and clean-up article - I agree with HumanxAnthro on this one. I think we should keep the article. However, it needs to be cleaned up and should probably have a few more sources added if any can be found. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 21:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hoover Dam in popular culture
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hoover Dam in popular culture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - the article is currently a list of tangential mentions of the dam in pop culture, but WP:AFD is ultimately not WP:NOTCLEANUP and is instead concerned with determining notability. While the article is under-sourced, potential sources like Imaging Hoover Dam: The Making of a Cultural Icon (a print source published by the University of Nevada Press) indicate the topic has be specifically covered enough to meet WP:GNG. Other, less stellar but still adequate sources like Pop Culture Places: An Encyclopedia of Places in American Popular Culture or [1], [2], [3] could also be cited. If the more quality sources are seen in sum with the more tangential mentions of the dam in popular culture, notability is likely established. A re-write with the sourcing that exists is preferable to deletion. SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and clean-up article per sources provided above by SamHolt6. It has lots of unsourced statements, or statements cited with unreliable sources (we're still using IDMb in [insert current year here]?), so re-writing this article with the books and academic literature provided above would be great! 👨x🐱 ( talk) 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and clean-up article - I agree with HumanxAnthro on this one. I think we should keep the article. However, it needs to be cleaned up and should probably have a few more sources added if any can be found. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 21:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.