Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler (retail store): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
keep |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
**** Heh, fair enough. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 22:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
**** Heh, fair enough. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 22:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. What MZMcBride says. Barely a blimp on the radar, and we're not the news--we should not be enshrining every little bit picked up by media that need at least one juicy silly story per day to keep the advertisers happy. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 05:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. What MZMcBride says. Barely a blimp on the radar, and we're not the news--we should not be enshrining every little bit picked up by media that need at least one juicy silly story per day to keep the advertisers happy. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 05:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep.'''. (I wrote it.) It may have been a blimp on the radar, but I believe it will remain an anecdote which will reappear in published works on Adolf Hitler, antisemitism (in India), etc. And when people stumble upon these references they are going to turn to us to get the full story. With respect to the nomination, I agree that the company doesn't warrant an article, however, the incident does. Would it be any better to change the title to [["Hitler" clothing store naming controversy]] or something similar? And should we bother? __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:32, 6 February 2013
Hitler (retail store)
- Hitler (retail store) (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)
This article reads like a news story. Generally, I don't believe this company is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. MZMcBride (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs a rewrite, but seems to have gained enough attention to warrant an article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've got no particular dog in this fight, I just happened to trip across this article on my phone the other day. But I can say that all of the sources you're pointing to are from the same week when the Wikipedia article was written. The Wikipedia article was written on August 29, 2012 and the sources (all of them) date between August 28 and September 4 (August 30, August 30, August 31, September 4, August 29, September 3, August 31, August 29, September 4, August 28, August 29). Has there been any coverage since this story went viral? The nature of wire stories (from Agence France-Presse or from the Associated Press) is that they'll be covered in multiple outlets over a short period of time. I think that's what we're seeing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there has been any other coverage and I am not particularly interested in researching it, since neither do I have a particular interest in this article, I just stumbled over this AfD somehow and I don't really give a damn whether it is kept or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've got no particular dog in this fight, I just happened to trip across this article on my phone the other day. But I can say that all of the sources you're pointing to are from the same week when the Wikipedia article was written. The Wikipedia article was written on August 29, 2012 and the sources (all of them) date between August 28 and September 4 (August 30, August 30, August 31, September 4, August 29, September 3, August 31, August 29, September 4, August 28, August 29). Has there been any coverage since this story went viral? The nature of wire stories (from Agence France-Presse or from the Associated Press) is that they'll be covered in multiple outlets over a short period of time. I think that's what we're seeing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. What MZMcBride says. Barely a blimp on the radar, and we're not the news--we should not be enshrining every little bit picked up by media that need at least one juicy silly story per day to keep the advertisers happy. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep.. (I wrote it.) It may have been a blimp on the radar, but I believe it will remain an anecdote which will reappear in published works on Adolf Hitler, antisemitism (in India), etc. And when people stumble upon these references they are going to turn to us to get the full story. With respect to the nomination, I agree that the company doesn't warrant an article, however, the incident does. Would it be any better to change the title to "Hitler" clothing store naming controversy or something similar? And should we bother? __meco (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)