Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Johnson

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 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Johnson

[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)

Does meet any criteria to be included in Wikipedia, basically they are self promoting a t-shirt brand. IKnowTheWayToSanJose (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clear case of WP:PROMO. All it needs is button on the page for ordering Tshirts. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep: I know you're a new editor so I'm not trying to bite you, but if the article feels promotional It can easily be fixed as the article already has the sources to pass GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am quite bite-proof. But seriously, I see nothing encyclopedic about this "brand" of T shirts, and I think WP:Junk was written about this type of page. Ode+Joy (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing I can see there would qualify for WP:TNT, and WP:JUNK certainly isn't in play (which is for nonsense and jibberish). This is a reasonably well-sourced article about something that looks to meet WP:GNG. On the basis of controversies that have resulted in significant coverage, alone, this probably meets our significant coverage requirements. That some of it might be written in a promotional manner is a fixable problem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my concept of "encyclopedic" differs from yours in that in my view a notable encyclopedic item educates the reader about art, science, literature, etc. The material in this page would not be relevant to The Smithsonian, The British Museum, the Louvre etc. I still see it as promotional junk, but I think I have said enough, so I will stop. Ode+Joy (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I suspect we have a similar view of what is interesting. But the requirement here is not that something is "encyclopedic" (ironically, perhaps). That's mostly because Wikipedia isn't a traditional form of historical record like those museums you reference. There are whole wikis dedicated to Star Wars, D&D, etc because that is what they have decided is important to them. Our decision-making is based on what is notable. I agree none of those museums would find this material worthy of coverage, but to be fair, they aren't trying to build a paperless repository of human knowledge like we are. Their inability (or unwillingness) to cover this sort of thing is akin to our inability to physically display a restored historical aircraft, dinosaur skeleton or marble statue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A keep based on the sourcing, but the article certainly needs work. I took a small pass to remove some of the worst promotionalism. Suriname0 (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources establish notablity. Ok, maybe it's unduly promotional; that's something that can be fixed, not a reason for deletion. Maproom (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept probably be cleaned up enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (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.