- 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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 06:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
MoonSwatch
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- MoonSwatch ( | 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:PROMO and non independent cruft sources emphasize its exclusivity. I did a BEFORE search, didn’t find any further sources. Even with promo language trimmed it’s at best WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively merging into Swatch would be acceptable too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Swatch. I have removed a speculative paragraph. In what remains, the last three citations appear to provide significant independent coverage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. With the speculative section removed, the article reads okayish. And even though I am personally surprised such a subject warrants its own article, some more sources exist (currently not in the article): NY Times, another Bloomberg, Wired and Wall Street Journal – seems enough coverage. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
-
LordPeterII The Bloomberg and WSJ sources solely consists of quotes/marketing material from Swatch Group and anonymous industry experts, which cannot be used to justify GNG. However, the other two sources you provided from NYT, Wired do satisfy significant coverage. I am less convinced about their independence with heavily promotional/cruft language like "revolutionized manufacturing/materials" without elaboration on what changed and extensive coverage of the mania/hype rather than the product itself. Even if those two sources were independent, I still don't think this sourcing merits own article, as current sourcing is still
WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Shushugah: Fair point, reading it again I agree that Bloomberg especially is not great, although
it is considered reliable. I'd count it as half a source. The NYT article I believe can be assumed as independent, I see no reason to doubt that. Wired (also reliable, generally) goes into some detail of the manufactoring process, which gives some explanation on why this watch might be different from others (something about bioceramics, idk). I can see why you are skeptical, as there apparently was a lot of hype around it, and the language used is a bit vivid. Currently in the article is also an article from the Strait Times, which apparently also is considered reliable unless it involves Singaporean politics. I'd say in sum we have enough sources, but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to a Merge as suggested by you and
Gusfriend. My issue with this is that the MoonSwatch involves both
Swatch and
Omega SA, so into which would we merge it? (they apparently
are friends, but the issue is the separate articles) I think the best point is about the hype, and whether or not this is
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)
- 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)
- @
Shushugah: Fair point, reading it again I agree that Bloomberg especially is not great, although
it is considered reliable. I'd count it as half a source. The NYT article I believe can be assumed as independent, I see no reason to doubt that. Wired (also reliable, generally) goes into some detail of the manufactoring process, which gives some explanation on why this watch might be different from others (something about bioceramics, idk). I can see why you are skeptical, as there apparently was a lot of hype around it, and the language used is a bit vivid. Currently in the article is also an article from the Strait Times, which apparently also is considered reliable unless it involves Singaporean politics. I'd say in sum we have enough sources, but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to a Merge as suggested by you and
Gusfriend. My issue with this is that the MoonSwatch involves both
Swatch and
Omega SA, so into which would we merge it? (they apparently
are friends, but the issue is the separate articles) I think the best point is about the hype, and whether or not this is
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)
-
LordPeterII The Bloomberg and WSJ sources solely consists of quotes/marketing material from Swatch Group and anonymous industry experts, which cannot be used to justify GNG. However, the other two sources you provided from NYT, Wired do satisfy significant coverage. I am less convinced about their independence with heavily promotional/cruft language like "revolutionized manufacturing/materials" without elaboration on what changed and extensive coverage of the mania/hype rather than the product itself. Even if those two sources were independent, I still don't think this sourcing merits own article, as current sourcing is still
WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. LordPeter's sources are indeed independent of the subject, establishing notability in the sense of WP:NPRODUCT and probably even in the sense of WP:NCORP (although that guideline doesn't apply here). Surprising indeed. Ovinus ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Swatch: There is already some information there and this would fit nicely there. Gusfriend ( talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
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)
- I would merge to
Swatch (possibly with a small note on the Omega page) as it is a Swatch creation paying homage to Omega watches. I have absolutely no concerns with the notability even before the addition of the new sources as it received a number of reviews and articles independently to the promotional side of things but I figured that a merge !vote was a simpler approach than saying keep (or even speedy keep) then a
WP:RM process down the road.
Gusfriend (
talk)
22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Wait what – @
Gusfriend you believe this satisfies notability, but still voted to Merge because it was
simpler
? I don't get that. Surely if the article satisfies WP:GNG, we don't need a WP:RM later? The whole point of WP:GNG is to determine whether an article can be standalone, afaik. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- @ 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would merge to
Swatch (possibly with a small note on the Omega page) as it is a Swatch creation paying homage to Omega watches. I have absolutely no concerns with the notability even before the addition of the new sources as it received a number of reviews and articles independently to the promotional side of things but I figured that a merge !vote was a simpler approach than saying keep (or even speedy keep) then a
WP:RM process down the road.
Gusfriend (
talk)
22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
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)
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)
- Merge to Swatch#Swatch X Omega: per Anachronist. The start-class parent article can use additional content and references, already has coverage of the topic, and "there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and there is simply no need to have a separate page on every subject. The small amount of content of this article will likely not advance beyond glorified stub yet merging could help raise the parent article classification. -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The question here is whether there are enough citations to warrant the subject to have its own page, rather than a merge. I believe there are. In addition, merging it may make the Swatch page too long at some point, and require a breakup, so best to keep it as its own page. Lovewiki106 ( talk) 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the swatch meets our notability guidelines. Lightburst ( talk) 02:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
- 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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 06:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
MoonSwatch
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- MoonSwatch ( | 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:PROMO and non independent cruft sources emphasize its exclusivity. I did a BEFORE search, didn’t find any further sources. Even with promo language trimmed it’s at best WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively merging into Swatch would be acceptable too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Swatch. I have removed a speculative paragraph. In what remains, the last three citations appear to provide significant independent coverage. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. With the speculative section removed, the article reads okayish. And even though I am personally surprised such a subject warrants its own article, some more sources exist (currently not in the article): NY Times, another Bloomberg, Wired and Wall Street Journal – seems enough coverage. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
-
LordPeterII The Bloomberg and WSJ sources solely consists of quotes/marketing material from Swatch Group and anonymous industry experts, which cannot be used to justify GNG. However, the other two sources you provided from NYT, Wired do satisfy significant coverage. I am less convinced about their independence with heavily promotional/cruft language like "revolutionized manufacturing/materials" without elaboration on what changed and extensive coverage of the mania/hype rather than the product itself. Even if those two sources were independent, I still don't think this sourcing merits own article, as current sourcing is still
WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Shushugah: Fair point, reading it again I agree that Bloomberg especially is not great, although
it is considered reliable. I'd count it as half a source. The NYT article I believe can be assumed as independent, I see no reason to doubt that. Wired (also reliable, generally) goes into some detail of the manufactoring process, which gives some explanation on why this watch might be different from others (something about bioceramics, idk). I can see why you are skeptical, as there apparently was a lot of hype around it, and the language used is a bit vivid. Currently in the article is also an article from the Strait Times, which apparently also is considered reliable unless it involves Singaporean politics. I'd say in sum we have enough sources, but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to a Merge as suggested by you and
Gusfriend. My issue with this is that the MoonSwatch involves both
Swatch and
Omega SA, so into which would we merge it? (they apparently
are friends, but the issue is the separate articles) I think the best point is about the hype, and whether or not this is
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)
- 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)
- @
Shushugah: Fair point, reading it again I agree that Bloomberg especially is not great, although
it is considered reliable. I'd count it as half a source. The NYT article I believe can be assumed as independent, I see no reason to doubt that. Wired (also reliable, generally) goes into some detail of the manufactoring process, which gives some explanation on why this watch might be different from others (something about bioceramics, idk). I can see why you are skeptical, as there apparently was a lot of hype around it, and the language used is a bit vivid. Currently in the article is also an article from the Strait Times, which apparently also is considered reliable unless it involves Singaporean politics. I'd say in sum we have enough sources, but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to a Merge as suggested by you and
Gusfriend. My issue with this is that the MoonSwatch involves both
Swatch and
Omega SA, so into which would we merge it? (they apparently
are friends, but the issue is the separate articles) I think the best point is about the hype, and whether or not this is
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)
-
LordPeterII The Bloomberg and WSJ sources solely consists of quotes/marketing material from Swatch Group and anonymous industry experts, which cannot be used to justify GNG. However, the other two sources you provided from NYT, Wired do satisfy significant coverage. I am less convinced about their independence with heavily promotional/cruft language like "revolutionized manufacturing/materials" without elaboration on what changed and extensive coverage of the mania/hype rather than the product itself. Even if those two sources were independent, I still don't think this sourcing merits own article, as current sourcing is still
WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. LordPeter's sources are indeed independent of the subject, establishing notability in the sense of WP:NPRODUCT and probably even in the sense of WP:NCORP (although that guideline doesn't apply here). Surprising indeed. Ovinus ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Swatch: There is already some information there and this would fit nicely there. Gusfriend ( talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
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)
- I would merge to
Swatch (possibly with a small note on the Omega page) as it is a Swatch creation paying homage to Omega watches. I have absolutely no concerns with the notability even before the addition of the new sources as it received a number of reviews and articles independently to the promotional side of things but I figured that a merge !vote was a simpler approach than saying keep (or even speedy keep) then a
WP:RM process down the road.
Gusfriend (
talk)
22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Wait what – @
Gusfriend you believe this satisfies notability, but still voted to Merge because it was
simpler
? I don't get that. Surely if the article satisfies WP:GNG, we don't need a WP:RM later? The whole point of WP:GNG is to determine whether an article can be standalone, afaik. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- @ 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would merge to
Swatch (possibly with a small note on the Omega page) as it is a Swatch creation paying homage to Omega watches. I have absolutely no concerns with the notability even before the addition of the new sources as it received a number of reviews and articles independently to the promotional side of things but I figured that a merge !vote was a simpler approach than saying keep (or even speedy keep) then a
WP:RM process down the road.
Gusfriend (
talk)
22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
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)
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)
- Merge to Swatch#Swatch X Omega: per Anachronist. The start-class parent article can use additional content and references, already has coverage of the topic, and "there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and there is simply no need to have a separate page on every subject. The small amount of content of this article will likely not advance beyond glorified stub yet merging could help raise the parent article classification. -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The question here is whether there are enough citations to warrant the subject to have its own page, rather than a merge. I believe there are. In addition, merging it may make the Swatch page too long at some point, and require a breakup, so best to keep it as its own page. Lovewiki106 ( talk) 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the swatch meets our notability guidelines. Lightburst ( talk) 02:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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.