Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgil's Root Beer

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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virgil's Root Beer

This is either deliberate spam, or the result of a very bored person sitting around looking at stuff. Either way it's non-notable. Reyk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A beer with that name appears to exist. Google returns 1.800 hits for "Virgil's Root Beer" (with the "), some with the name of the beer in the title. There is even a review for it! (a very negative one, actually) [1]. That the author was bored is likely, but does not matter. Article needs a cleanup. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm about 95% sure I've had that, actually. No reason to believe it isn't real, and the wording certainly doesn't resemble spam in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real brand of root beer. Kappa 15:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've seen this brand in at least a dozen supermarkets in my area, worst case scenario would be a cleanup if it read as spam, this is definately notable. Karmafist 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Paolo Liberatore - pretty Italian name - is that Paul the Liberator? Molotov (talk)
  16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. You know the Italian language! (at least two words of it...) Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a nationally sold brand of root beer, and I suggest you try it if you can, as it's really good. Andrew Levine 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but is this an article about Root Beer or Wine? I was waiting for the author to describe the body and esters of the Root Beer... Could stand a cleanup.--Isotope23 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree this looks like someone who was bored just typed in some text from the label (does that make it a copyvio?) but legitimate brands are article worthy. Needs clean-up and expansion, however. 23skidoo 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sold at Trader Joe's and nationally-known. Agreed that it needs bigtime cleanup. - Sensor 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless reference can be found in Iliad. I haven't heard of it, and I think the less commercial brands on wikipedia the better. --MacRusgail 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How would that benefit the users? Kappa 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of brands, many of which are not notable at all, and they all have big marketing machines behind them... they don't need free advertising IMO, and I'm not sure most of the articles are encyclopedic, unless they can include stuff like histories, controversies, lawsuits, or perhaps even significant cultural references. --MacRusgail 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • So the users can rely on the big marketing machines and don't need any NPOV source of information? Kappa 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • These articles are a form of marketing, unintentional or otherwise, unless they include more evidence for their notability (other than merely high sales which many brands have). My local corner shop sells hundreds of items, many of which can be found elsewhere, but are not particularly notable. This is an article about a "root beer", telling us it's a "root beer". --MacRusgail 14:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep NPOV information on commercial brands and products is extremely valuable. Will be even more so in about a hundred years. Unfocused 02:43, 26 October 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.