Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idol goods


 * 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. Can be restored via WP:REFUND for the purpose of history-merging with Draft:Idol goods if somebody really wants to work on that.  Sandstein  13:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Idol goods

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Repeatedly re-created copy of Draft:Idol goods that is not ready for publishing. I feel a little iffy re-re-G6'ing as uncontroversial housekeeping so I figured I would take it here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A10 It's a poor translation of ko:아이돌 굿즈 which probably ought to be a more restrained section of K-pop or Korean idol. The translation renders fandom as Pandom in section titles - I'm sure a machine translation wouldn't do that. On the other hand I'd expect a human to remove the "[edit | edit source]" from the section headers. I've seen similar repeats speedied as A10 to the draft, and as G6. Cabayi (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From how I read WP:A10, it only applies to articles that duplicate a topic already represented on the English wiki, so I'm not sure it could be an A10 of a Korean wiki article. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "as A10 to the draft". Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as massive overkill for what should be, at most, two or three sentences in respective idol articles. Redirect doesn't make sense with multiple targets available in enwiki (Japanese idol, Korean idol, specific groups, etc). Merge doesn't make sense because no editor should have to spend valuable time dealing with this large amount of detailed and oddly-translated text (e.g. "cheering stick", which English-speaking idol fans would probably call "penlight" or "cyalume"). Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Move/histmerge it with the draft version at Draft:Idol goods and see if it ends up an article later on. This is a bit different from what User:Bakazaka is saying above–I don't think it should be merged in the article space, but there's no reason to delete this article and leave an earlier version of it behind at Draft:Idol goods. Dekimasu よ! 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Move/histmerge I agree with the above explanations. Deleting would be an overkill. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article (created by students as part of the educational assignment simultaneously (not just a translation of) with ko:아이돌 굿즈) is indeed in need of code/grammar copyediting. It also likely needs a globalize as the said students are Korean so the article is written from  Korean perspective and doesn't discuss non-Korean markets sufficiently. That said, as the instructor who authorized the students to write on this topic, I think the topic  is notable and unless you think this raises to a WP:TNT level, I think the article should be kept. Unfortunately, the students used mostly Korean souces which are difficult for most of us to verify, and most of them are newspaper-level, but a few are Korean academic papers (,, , plus there is  which contains English word phrase "idol goods", through I don't think the students cite it despite it being a Korean paper) and anyway, a quick search in English language academic books an articles should suffice to note that the concept of idol goods (or perhaps, idol merchandise) is notable. Consider:
 * "An important part of idol fandom is the consumption of aidoru guzzu, or idol goods (merchandise)". The term 'idol goods' is used in the book index for several pages of content.
 * "In any case, companies cash in on "idol goods" (compact discs, photo albums, calendars, telephone cards, T-shirts, key chains, lapel pins, various stationery goods)"
 * This book (Islands of eight million smiles: idol performance and symbolic production in contemporary Japan) uses the term "idol goods" on at least 11 pages
 * As such, I stand by my initial assessment that this topic is a notable phenomena. I asked the students to read this AfD for constructive criticism, and I invite you to offer suggestions on how to improve the article (but note the grades are due by Dec 30th the latest, and it is rare to see a student motivated to keep fixing an article after the grading period... for that reason also I strongly object to merging with a draft, it it is still a drafty by New Year, it might as well be deleted because the odds are slim the students will continue the draft process - unless they say otherwise, as I noted I did alert them to this discussion, let's see if they post here). PS. My suggestion to students is to use the three English language sources above, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the topic is notable. Independent sources in multiple countries discuss "idol goods" as a cultural and economic category (see also "band merchandise" or Concert T-shirt). But in my opinion this article rises to a WP:TNT level, meaning that it would be better to start over with just the title. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think this is unsalvagable gibberish, i.e. TNT level? I think it is a decent start with some reliable, (if non-English) references, of course in need of expansion and copyediting for structure and grammar issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not use the term "unsalvageable gibberish", so I'm not going to explain that. I provided my reasoning in previous comments. It's clear that we have a difference of opinion on an article that your students wrote. There's no need to escalate that into anything else. I'm happy to let others weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I lost interest in commenting further once it became apparent that to do so would be either doing 's assignment or ' marking, which is pretty much my principal objection to helping out a COI or paid editor. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify I don't believe that it just needs a copyedit. Many portions of the article do not make sense or the point isn't clear and it would take reading all the sources to try to fix it and do a rewrite. Why that should be someone else's problem is beyond me especially in a classroom environment. I think having students contribute to Wikipedia is a great idea but I come across too many articles from students that need major overhaul. IMO that overhaul shouldn't be passed on to the community. There's enough to do. And how did I get here? Because I was looking to do some copyediting today. I did not know what idol goods were before clicking on the article and after reading the article I still am not sure what idol goods are. I also had to do a bunch of searching to just understand what was meant by idol in this context. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 00:32, 26 December 2018 (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.