Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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. with expansion of article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Britain Mules[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

New Britain Mules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning Keep. The area newspapers of the time gave extensive coverage to this team; which isn't all that surprising since the ABL was, it appears, among the largest professional basketball leagues of the time. See thousands of results from just 1933 to 1935 when they were active. It seems one could easily develop a WP:GA-class article or better if they put the work into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @IgnatiusofLondon: Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a great find, but I don't think the mere existence of sources, although it helps to establish notability, changes my !vote. Currently, New Britain Mules provides little information separate to the team's entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55. I appreciate this argument runs against WP:TOOLITTLE/WP:RUBBISH, but per WP:NOPAGE:

      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.

      I'm not sure what benefit to understanding keeping the standalone article really provides, at this time, until an interested editor makes the effort to source or expand the article. So a redirect strikes me as an appropriate alternative to deletion for now. And of course, I am fully aware of the irony that this might well turn into one of those deletion discussions in which, for all the time we spend discussing whether to delete the article, we might as well have used that time to bring those sources forward that render the question moot. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @IgnatiusofLondon: One must also realize that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article: 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)[reply]
      I don't see where WP:NOPAGE applies only 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).
      Put it this way: if New Britain Mules were already a redirect, no sane editor would create an article by copying and pasting their entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 and call it a day. It would be unhelpful for readers wanting more information from the ABL article to find no further information at the standalone article. There's no point creating a standalone article unless it adds information beyond what is already offered in the target article. As this isn't the case, a redirect is appropriate until an editor produces the necessary sources to (i) demonstrate the topic's notability and (ii) expand Wikipedia's coverage of the team beyond what can reasonably be written in their entry at the ABL page.
      To offer a similar case, today, I BLAR'd Ildiger, because the article (old revision) had nothing to say about the subject beyond what was already said at Siege of Ariminum (538). But it's a redirect with possibilities, because an editor that can construct a fuller biographical article should feel encourgaed to do so.
      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)[reply]
      I put it this way: 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. Redirects are virtually never expanded except on, e.g., modern topics who have since gained further notability. There's just not that many interested in historic redirect expansions, sadly. But of course I can expand this at some point soon if I am the only hope this article has for existence. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @IgnatiusofLondon: I performed a major expansion of the article. It now has a wealth of information included nowhere else, including that they had several Basketball Hall of Fame players, were considered (if briefly) as among the top teams in the U.S., and defeated the 1934 "world champions", the Original Celtics (one of the only franchises ever inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame), in a blowout. They seem even more notable than I initially thought. Your thoughts on keeping? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Keep Ultimately, no deletion tools are necessary. In the worst case scenario, this should be a redirect, but I think the article has potential. Zagalejo (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish this argument could be used to cut AfDs short. Unfortunately, I've never seen it accepted here. AfD wants to make all these decisions within these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contesting Let'srun's PROD, your edit summary was: 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)[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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Britain_Mules