Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Oreo Vault


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Global Oreo Vault

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promo gimmick / borderline hoax. Don't let the "references" fool you. Fails notability on account of no WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that some of the article makes no sense at all (a random vault which for some reason has an Oreo branding, which was deemed by some to be a publicity stunt, what?). Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Doesn't appear to be a hoax - at least not on Wikipedia's part. The project is covered in reliable sources, including CNET, Food and Wine Magazine, Business Insider (yellow on RSP), Fox (not a politics so reliable per RSP), Deseret (green on RSP for "local" news), and probably more. That being said, I don't know if this is notable enough for its own article - thus at this time merge to Oreo until more sustained coverage (if any) happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oreo. Not notable enough for its own article.--Darwinek (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Oreo. No evidence that this is a hoax, and even if it is, it's well known enough to be notable. If it turns out to be a hoax, it must be marked as such. J I P  &#124; Talk 01:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Oreo. Per the news coverage, this qualifies for an article relative to GNG, but this can also be easily merged to the main Oreo article. North America1000 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax article. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * delete The notability bar for a publicity stunt has to be pretty high, especially considering all the other marketing angles people have tried over the years. The fact that people are having some difficulty determining that the article is not a hoax gives a measure of how little impact the stunt has had so far. That could of course change, but right now I feel a certain straining for sources. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm retracting the 'hoax' part of my nom; this does seem to be a real thing. A real, 100% pure publicity stunt, that is. (And a pretty slick one, too, so kudos to whoever came up with it!) I still think this should be nixed, but I could also live with merging to Oreo, as suggested already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that being a hoax is not by itself a criterion for deletion. A hoax can be notable if it's covered well enough in reliable sources. Of course this requires that it is admitted as a hoax in the sources and in Wikipedia. J I P  &#124; Talk 00:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is an obvious hoax made up by some vandal, then it can be deleted, but a well-known hoax is allowed, right? Foxnpichu (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For example Polybius (urban legend) was well known. The article has 23 references. It is notable even though Polybius did not really exist. But if I were to make up something fictional one day and post it to Wikipedia, it would be speedy deleted as a non-notable hoax. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. That’s what Wikipedia is all about. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just a marketing gimmick and does not have the sort of sustained critical coverage that would even make it worth mentioning in the Oreo article. A few articles breathlessly repeating a company's marketing material does not an encyclopedic topic make. Spicy (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: GNG has a presumption of notability but not an absolute guarantee. WP:EVENTCRIT says, "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).." and "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." The emphasis is on lasting effects, which this subject does not have.  // Timothy ::  talk  21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an obvious hoax—Spitzbergen is an extremely sensitive habitat in which the environment is legally protected by international treaty, and if a global multinational were really to start excavation and construction in the wilderness without going through formal channels with the Governor of Svalbard it would cause a major international incident. (This whole thing reminds me of the Cooper Brown fiasco from a decade ago, in which an editor insisted we treat a piece of fiction published in a newspaper as fact because "it must be true, it appeared in the newspaper and it doesn't explicitly say that it's fiction".) A marketing campaign can theoretically be notable in Wikipedia terms if the campaign receives significant coverage in its own right, but there's nothing to indicate that here; the "sources" are just a handful of breathlessly reprinted press releases, we're not talking Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch! or Whassup? here. If they stick with the concept and it becomes an actual part of popular culture, rather than a one-off minor advertising campaign with minimal impact, I'd reconsider, but we're certainly not there yet. I explicitly don't support merging to Oreo; a minor one-off stunt isn't nearly important enough to justify inclusion in the parent article, unless we're going to cover every other marketing campaign they've ever run. &#8209; Iridescent 09:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: the number of editors which view this as a possible hoax demonstrates that if it isn't deleted for notability, it should be deleted as part of WP:TNT; if an article leaves readers questioning whether the subject exists or is fiction, its a complete fail and time to start over.  // Timothy ::  talk  10:03, 18 November 2020 (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.