Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alresford Show

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 redirect‎ to New Alresford. Star Mississippi 02:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alresford Show[edit]

[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)

Non-notable event page created by a COI trying to bolster another COI article they created. Cited only to itself. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just went through and rewrote and reformatted most of the article. I've added some sources that I've found, which I think might just be enough to prove WP:GNG. However, I would really prefer it if I could find some more sources from a little further outside the immediate region of the event. -Navarre0107 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to New Alresford. Was going to suggest merge to New Alresford where there is a subheading under Events for the show, but there's little of substance remaining in the article to merge.

Keep argument is based on likely newspaper coverage over the years, see for example this search of British Newspaper Archive [1]. Some of the hits, probably a majority, are likely announcements but others include more detailed reports on the event so perhaps more than a stub could be written. The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News has captioned photographic coverage for 1945 and 1946, and was a London-based publication, which helps alleviate concern over purely local sourcing see [2]. Rupples (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect or Keep outcome given changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the best option, the coverage is still pretty weak Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – the sources aren't good enough. They're too insignificant and this show is much too local to justify an article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Redirect. On balance redirect is probably the better option. Brief info. exists in the target article New Alresford under a subheading in the Events section. This could be expanded. "Too local" shouldn't necessarily preclude a separate article in the future if, for example, a substantial history of the show were to be written (that was a reliable source), and adding further encylopedic material would unbalance the New Alresford article. Rupples (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Alresford — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:27, 15 May 2023 (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.