Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson Brothers (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I appreciate the added sources, I do not believe that, taken together, they provide sufficient basis for a standalone article. The only source that fleshes out the Hansons, and provides sufficient information for a standalone article, is vintagemnhockey.com, but that can hardly be considered a reliable source per WP:SPS. What we do have is sufficient information for a separate section in Slap Shot and therefore I think Merge is the correct outcome here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Figureofnine (talk · contribs) - Would you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that vintagemnhockey.com is a self-published source? To me, it looks like a website about the history of hockey in Minnesota. Would you also please elaborate what you think is lacking from these other sources:
I don't doubt your sincerity, however you said you did a "thorough check" between the 11th and 14th of July and didn't find even a single source. Given that you failed to pick up such mainstream sources as the New York Times, The Hockey News, and the National Hockey League, it seems that your research was not thorough at all. You dismiss the sources that have been presented, and that's fine. But as the nominator and only proponent so far, it's on you to make the case which you have not done, in my opinion. On the other hand, you have convinced me to go and watch the movie again, so high-fives all around! Buffalkill (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a great film, just on TCM, which is how I latched on to this subject. What I see in these articles is enough for a nice perma-stub if we don't use vintagehockey, which has the appearance of yet another self-published fan website. I was hoping to see stuff in regional newspapers but turned up blank. I would have been happy to add some good profiles and articles as sources if I had found them. I used the same database to flesh out North American Hockey League (1973–1977), which is another 1970s artifact that needed more sourcing. Now, it wouldn't end the world having yet another fancruft article sourced to marginal or non-RS sources, but I think a section in Slap Shot makes more sense. And incidentally if the gods of Wikipedia were to determine that vintagehocky is an acceptable source, I would want to use it for the Hockey League article, which could use more sourcing still. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the New York Times is a pretty good source, since it talks about the Hanson Brother characters in a real-world context, rather than simply within the plot of the films. As most of the sources discussing the characters are also discussing the film, though, it could be a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would make more sense to cover them together in one article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The further sources below along with the NYT article I posted above show that there is sufficient coverage on the trio outside of their role in the movie that a Split would be justified in this case. The current article definitely needs improvement (integrating these new sources into the article, replacing the bullet points for actual prose text, etc.) but there is no longer a case for Deletion here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if there are sufficient sources. I didn't find a single one in my search on Newspapers.com, and I'm not sure what's been presented meets GNG. While it wasn't my intent to nominate this article for deletion to fix it, the fact remains that it has been sitting there in a terrible state, fancruft, for years and has been tagged for sourcing since 2012, with a further tag in February 2023. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BEFORE, there are many reliable sources available to improvement. The article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the article talk page, I only nominated this for deletion after I was able to perform a thorough check using a suitable database, Newspapers.com. As you can see from the article, in the many years since this article was created, reliable sources were not provided even after it was first nominated for deletion. Even the external link that sat at the bottom of this article for many years, described as the Hansons' "official website," did nothing more than pitch Hanson merchandise. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:GNG and I can help with addressing the article's shortcomings. WP:SIGCOV & WP:SUSTAINED includes the above-mentioned NY Times piece, write-ups on NHL.com from 2017 and 2023, a 2006 cover story and a 2023 follow-up in The Hockey News, this article from 2020, and this article from 2021. Moreover, there will undoubtedly be endless reems and reels of coverage related to the actors' many public appearances over the years. The followign exerpt is from the 2010 NY Times article cited by Rorshacma above: "They used to make around 90 appearances a year and were sponsored by Budweiser. For the last several years, they have made about 20 to 30, Hanson said. They receive 300 to 400 requests, including some from Europe, he said." Buffalkill (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buffalkill and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage demonstrated through article improvements. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see evidence of WP:NOTABILITY for these characters. It seems on the edge of whether it's enough for a stand-alone article, and I support the emerging consensus that this article can be improved, without deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:31, 16 July 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.