Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotton Mouth (candy)

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton Mouth (candy)

Possible hoax. — Phil Welch 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's a hoax it's a pretty well crafted one. It's vaguely reminiscent of my own Midwestern grandmother's homemade dessert, which doesn't appear on Google either. Still, it's up to the article's creator to prove that this is real and noteworthy. Durova 04:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Dottore So 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm the author. I really hate to see this page go ... really :-( but I understand the reasoning. I repeat below what I wrote in response to the original deleter on the disambiguation page I made. No need to reread if you saw it there already. And to repeat, I AM NOT A LIAR!! Bye, for now cotton mouth candy (if anyone wants it to stay I'd be happy ... no?, ok then). I repeat, it is sad to see a piece of midwest history rejected just because it is not on google ... guess I'm getting old. Disambiguation post:

• • Ok, this is fair. I wanted to understand why the original deletion, thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand I should in theory know all the rules before I post, but a little common courtesy is not too much to ask from society I hope (??). I resent the implication it's a hoax or lie. I am a respectable person, but didn't understand that when I added a page it needed to be google verifiable. See it from my uninformed point of view ... I grew up with this stuff when I lived in the U.S. in midwest states like Wyoming and Montana. We made it for people when they had dry mouth from allergies or medical treatments (now there are many over the counter alternatives). In fact, I added the page because I was looking for it on wikipedia because of my allergies, not to make a "joke" or "hoax". I thought I could help some people. In the process I even learned to merge some pages that needed it and fixed a bad link from the Garage Band section of all places. I am friends with studsmc, and we collaborate on many pages in our field of work ... I don't think that is wrong (she is also familiar with cotton mouth candy). In fact, I will delete the page if I can figure out how and move it to my user page until I can find a way to verify. Please any of you who are interested, look at my user page (it might take me 24 hours or so to get it on there). I will put up a picture of my ingredients and the two bottles I currently have right here by my computer (it's no joke!!). It is not medicine so you can make it yourselves for fun too! I will repeat this on the original page and agree it should be deleted. By the way, there are many things, you youngsters ;-) might be interested to know, that are real even though they are not on google searches! Don't assume and infer people are liars because you can't google it. I understand the problem, though ... and don't forget, much can be avoided by a little niceness from person to person (it might not even kill us :-o ). Oldness makes you ramble too, sorry. Superclear 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • And a relearning xp for all ... Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.

• • In the past now, but being accused of pulling a joke or hoax is what made me upset in the first place, even though my page should be deleted.
    • I don't see anything inappropriate about calling an article with no Google presence and no citations a possible hoax. Other editors cannot intuit the difference between unverifiable genuine information and hoaxes. I hope you post this information to a personal website. It seems like the kind of Americana that ought to be preserved. Best wishes. Durova 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks Durova. My objection was that the first time it was deleted it just disappeared with no mention of why on the discussion page (there was not even a afd discussion like this time ... just gone). The edit title didn't say possible hoax, it declared as fact that it is a joke or made up ... an arrogant statement by a anonymous user who clearly didn't read some of the common courtesy Wikiquette I have now become familiar with. The second time the same anonymous user deleted it they suggested it might be a joke or made up and sent a discussion of why it was deleted ... that was understandable to me. Although I would still prefer something like "Sorry, but my research couldn't verify this content, so in accordance with wikipedia policy I will mark it for deletion. If you have refereces we can take it off the delete list". I hope wikipedians aren't generally this antisocial, or many nontechnical computer users will just not bother helping. Please see my user page for a description and picture of cotton mouth candy/product whatever!! Superclear 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sadly a lot of us end up valuing convenience over politeness (and I use the inclusive pronoun deliberately); it's a lot easier to write "hoax" than "information that I tried to verify and failed, and which also looks unlikely based on my own personal experience". And given the amount of hoaxing and vandalism that does go on, a lot of us find it hard to remember to assume good faith.
        • That said, it's good to see you've userfied the information. You might also consider adding it to the Wikibooks Cookbook, if you haven't already; that's the appropriate Wikimedia place for recipes. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for now, as unverifiable, userfied, and author-requested deletion; and here's hoping someone finds references for this, because I for one would welcome a verifiable article on the subject. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Haeleth, I appreciate (and understand) your comments, thanks. I might indeed add to the cookbook someday. Probably not appropriate to push this on the deletion page, but anyone who wants, please have a look at my user page (I just now really expanded) in case you or someone might want to make some cotton mouth for yourselves. Thanks everyone. One nitpicking point. One comment says unverifiable which is not necessarily true, it is just not verified!
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 03:01, 16 November 2005 (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.