Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbojugend


 * 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 speedy keep. nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Turbojugend

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Disputed prod but I don't see the evidence that this is a notable fan club. There's not much more that can be reliably sourced than is at Turbonegro. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose! I improved the references on this article and I added 2 book references, describing the nature of this fanclub. Furthermore, there exist Wikipedia articles on this topic in German, Swedish and Norwegian.


 * With my modifications, the article matches the definitions of WP:Club


 * 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * With hundreds of chapters all around the world, this criterion is undoubtedly met.
 * 2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
 * As there are 3 books about its nature and activities and a series of newspaper articles and interviews with the band Turbonegro regading Turbojugend, I think this criterion is met as well. Sebotic (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As a member of turbojugend I can verify there are several sources of this fan club's existence. A simple search of Google responds with turbojugend.net which is a detailed history and archive of jugend from across the world. The fact this is an international organization makes it relevant. If one was to explore further on turbojugend.net one would discover the existence of a store front for purchases of denim jackets that are approved or denied by a moderator. This is an example of an organizational structure. The search of "turbojugend in media" provides several links to relevant organizations as well as videos of the jugend in action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJLandfill (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There needs to be reliable sources not mere blogs or other things like that and we need substantial coverage not mere mentions. Footnotes 2 and 3 are about the diploma and Footnote 2 goes to the main page and it's not clear whether the website qualifies. Footnote 3 is similar so it's not clear what the reference is saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand your concern:


 * The updated article includes published books about the Turbojugend. What is more substantial than published books?
 * Why does the website Turbojugend.net not qualify? You can see the Turbojugend chapters allover the world here.
 * There is a public Facebook site about the annual meeting, https://www.facebook.com/weltturbojugendtage, the event is covered here http://www.mmenschenkind.com/weltturbobilderschau/ where you see that we made it into a gallery in Hamburg, Germany
 * Hamburg's newspaper, The Hamburger Abendblatt, reports here: http://st.pauli-news.de/schlaglicht/turbojugend-auf-st-pauli/, http://st.pauli-news.de/schlaglicht/turbojugend-laedt-zum-familientreffen/
 * There is a shop where you can buy the Turbojugend merchandise: http://www.shopturbojugend.com/category/denim
 * There is a podcast about the Turbojugend: http://turbojugendradio.podomatic.com
 * The Urban Dictionary as an article about the Turbojugend: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turbojugend
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify why you argue for the deletion of the Turbojugend page? Sebotic has shown that the Turbojugend article matches the definitions of a notable WP:Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusDiefenthaler (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 03:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It could still do with better sourcing, but with the sources now provided in the article - including books about them - they pass the notability threshold. Scholar suggests there is also some sort of sociological paper written about them ("Exzess, Provokation und Normalität-die Turbojugend: die Untersuchung eines Fanclubs"), but there doesn't seem to be a copy online. Kolbasz (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep like in WP:SNOW, subject is very easily referenced with independent, reliable sources way above the requirements of WP:GNG. I have added just 15-20 citations, several of which are Cite books in several different languages e.g.
 * and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and as a book search is mandatory due diligence it's hard to understand that we are here. Pinging for their reconsideration. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll withdraw it. I looked over the book sources but I wasn't sure where the difference was between passing mentions and significant discussion there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (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.