Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoonSwatch

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 between keeping or merging.

(non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

MoonSwatch

MoonSwatch (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)

Article reeks of

WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively merging into Swatch would be acceptable too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:LASTING, although the article is not about the hype event, but the product. So... I still believe this MoonSwatch is notable in its own right, just barely. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Edit: Actually found a few more sources, mostly in German: this (by 20 Minuten), this (by Handelszeitung – not sure about independence, but language is at least not just promotional, calling the article subject a "PR stunt"), this (Handelszeitung again, not significant here, but mentioned), this (Financial Times, in English). This actually reassures me Keep is better than Merge. And I don't even have even a cheap wristwatch anymore, I just use my phone 🤷‍♂️ --LordPeterII (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LordPeter's sources are indeed independent of the subject, establishing notability in the sense of
    WP:NCORP (although that guideline doesn't apply here). Surprising indeed. Ovinus (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Swatch: There is already some information there and this would fit nicely there. Gusfriend (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend, as pointed out above this article discusses a product by both Swatch and Omega SA – so how would we merge? I'm also curious whether you had a look at the sources I found (since amended): Did you not find them sufficient? --LordPeterII (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge to
WP:RM process down the road. Gusfriend (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Worth noting The Swatch Group owns both Swatch and Omega. All three articles could mention it though. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what – @
WP:GNG is to determine whether an article can be standalone, afaik. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I meant recommend merge rather than recommend move. Do I think that the topic is notable? Yes. Do I think that there is sufficient information for a page? Yes. Do I think that there is a better option for the page than having it as a standalone page? Also yes. Gusfriend (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Just because something can be a standalone topic doesn't mean it needs to be. There is no requirement for all topics with significant coverage to stand alone. In fact, often we have articles that are split out only after the article gets too unweildy in size, not because one of the topics contained therein is independently notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend and Anachronist: Hmm, okay I think I get what you mean now, thanks for elaborating. I stand by my Keep vote, but the Merge votes no longer seem illogical to me ^^ --LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: In this case, the Swatch article is reasonably short and could easily absorb the information from MoonSwatch without gettting too big in size. It is a convenience for the reader if all the information about a topic is in one place. When that "one place" gets too big, then we split it out. So far nobody except the nominator Shushugah is advocating deletion, and I think even he would likely not object to a merge of content that he feels doesn't merit a standalone topic. A merge discussion can be held separately from this. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:33, 26 August 2022 (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.