Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKOldies

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DKOldies[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)

This article appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A large portion of the sources on this article are primary and not independent of the subject. Some of the sources listed fail WP:SIRS, for example citing Google Maps as a source for it headquarters and making up information not present (linking a TikTok account as a source for their marketing and not an independent one) and citing an online flyer. A good portion of the body of this article has WP:INHERITORG, as the sources list expensive items sold on the website without providing context to the subject of the article. The only significant coverage present on this article is related to a controversy regarding some of their products being received in bad quality, but still fails WP:ORGDEPTH.

This article was created and primarily edited by 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:0:0:0:0/64 and User:Jeffhardyfan08, with the range and the user being checkuser blocked. Also to note, this range has vandalized the article multiple times and the associated talk, maybe qualifying this article as a G10 if it was made to act as a sandbox for vandalism. Noting this information, I can say that this article was made for the sole purpose of promoting the subject in a suspicious manner and a quick Google search shows no general notability other from one controversy and sales of items online, which is standard for an ecommerce platform and not notable by itself. Jennytacular (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Jennytacular (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion. Audible groaning this is the second article by User:Jeffhardyfan08 today I've participated in a discussion for deletion or merging. This article fails literally everything you said. Blitzfan51 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as failing WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed some of the worst content from the article, but didn't have the confidence to nominate it for deletion myself as amongst the majority of poor sources that do not support notability, there are a small number that do provide independent, reliable, in depth coverage (independence being shown by being critical of the company). I'm persuaded by Jennytacular's argument that poor reviews will exist for most e-commerce companies and aren't enough to meet GNG. I believe the article was created to garner publicity for the company, though that might have backfired. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above submissions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is still notable enough to get attention from major YouTubers and video game-related websites, and it has enough sources to back up the article. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep the DKoldies Wikipedia page Colton2022 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show proof of your claim for it to be valid, you can't just go and say WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Also note that Wikipedia doesn't generally recognize "YouTubers" as valid sources, so I wouldn't focus on that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Gets attention from YouTubers” is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Not see video game websites unless they’re reliable sources. I’d like to know which sources you consider meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please list three sources per WP:THREE, it can support your argument if you can find such sources. Merko (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/07/sealed-copy-ofsuper-mario-brossells-for-30000/amp/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rare-copy-original-super-mario-133000499.html

https://sea.ign.com/video-games/193879/news/rapper-orders-tons-of-retro-titles-goes-viral-on-instagram

https://www.svg.com/1220495/the-shady-side-of-dkoldies/ SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 15:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku, Yahoo Finance and IGN articles don't have DKOldies as the main subject, and SVG is considered an unreliable source per consensus. Merko (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two sources seem to contribute towards GNG/NCORP. SVG [1] and Game Rant [2]. No other source in the article does, so at present falls short of satisfying the multiple criterion. One more independent commentary in a reliable source makes this borderline notable; two more would push it over the line. Rupples (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VGRS considers SVG unreliable, and Game Rant unfit for establishing notability. Merko (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, hadn't come across WP:VGRS. My view is weak delete. Rupples (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Those mentioned in this AfD are not fit for establishing notability. Merko (talk) 16:28, 7 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.