Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Redhawks

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 no consensus. Both sides argue excellent points; but after a month's worth of discussion and two relistings, no consensus to delete has been established. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redhawks

Washington Redhawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

After almost two years with no further mention in reliable sources, it appears that the topic fails both WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NotNews guidlines. I created the article in December, 2017 because I thought the Redhawks spoof was interesting and had a couple of reliable sources, but I did not want to add to the already large size of the main article, Washington Redskins name controversy. "Not the News" should have warranted a waiting period before doing so, which is my error. With the passage of time, the criteria of notability is relevant; the topic was a blip in the media that did not last a week, so a separate article should not have been created (again, my bad). That does not mean the topic should automatically folded back into the main article, which remains too large to include all of the minor details surrounding the controversy while remaining a GA, something I am currently trying to remedy. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the content should stay on the 'pedia in some form, whether or not a standalone article winds up being the best place for it. As a culture jam that wound up having a limited run, it makes sense that further sourcing did not emerge. However, for what it was, it was/is notable.

If you want to merge it, we could look at which article on the Mascot controversy currently has the best coverage of actions, or create a section for actions like this in that article. If this isn't kept as a standalone, and I'm not opposed to keeping it as its own article, potentially we could put it there. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not seeing an obvious place to merge it. Fighting Whites has its own article. Unless someone wants to make a new article putting all of these together, right now I'm leaning towards Keep. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, also looking at coverage of the "Caucasians" shirts. Googling about it, along with Migizi Pensoneau of the 1491s turns up a number of pieces about their Daily Show appearance, notably the threats he got when wearing the shirt among fans of the team. This is his original piece about it, but there are quite a few more. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the protests section at Washington Redskins name controversy per WP:FORK. This is an unnecessary content fork, and on its own doesn't show sustained coverage. It is valuable content that is worth keeping though as others have mentioned above.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep over Merge I'm in a similar mind to CorbieVreccan. After digging through WP:EVENT for event specific guidelines (which as a disclaimer I'm not at all familiar with and some of them I'm reading for the first time), the Redhawks would probably remain as a standalone article. Within the criteria, it doesn't have a lasting effect, nor does it fully satisfy the widespread impact, but it was widely covered. The sources it already has satisfy WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE to my liking. It was largely brushed aside after being outed as false, but when it comes to sustained coverage of events, the wording of the guidelines seem to indicate that a lack of consistent coverage or a lasting effect does not disqualify the Redhawks from being suitably notable. "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." We're certainly in a grey area where it doesn't meet every guideline, but failure to meet every guideline isn't enough to say that it ought to be another section in an already bloated article as these guidelines are worded. Of course my entire argument stems on the fact that I consider it more an event, which doesn't quite hold it to the same standards of sustained coverage. If you don't think so, you'd probably rather merge it. hewhoamareismyself 05:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Washington Redskins name controversy. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, with coverage over a few days, and few references to it since. Even if it meets WP:GNG, it doesn't mandate a standalon article: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. If it's treated as an event, it lacks WP:LASTING impact.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, it wasn't deletion sorted to American football until now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Something other than delete but I'm not sure what Looks like there's coverage, content is worthy of inclusion... somewhere... merge? re-write? I'd be against a cold delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2019 (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.