Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Up Plus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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: Tough call, but I'm going to call it in favor of "merge and redirect". I've merged its contents with 7 Up and turned 7 Up Plus into a redirect. (Most of the information was actually already in the 7 Up article.) Tomertalk 01:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 7 Up Plus
- Delete Even though this article may technically be accurate, it gives no sources. Plus, is it going to be easy to maintain. In a 5 years will the information still be accurate? For instance, 7 Up may eventually sell the line, or discontinue it altogether. If in 5 years the information is inaccurate, will anybody be willing to edit it?TheRingess 04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Unsure of the validity of this argument. If someone's willing to maintain the page by mentioning various flavours as they come out, etc., they won't have to work nearly as hard to do so if the product itself is discontinued. Also, although source information is important, it's not so critical if the article in question is rather non-controversial and about a commonly-available product. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding argumentative, when I read Wikipedias guidelines about providing references, I didn't see any caveats about criticality. The article does contain information about the ingredients, without providing a source, which suggests that its more a commercial than a genuine encyclopedia article. I also doubt that anyone is going to want to waste time updating this article as new flavors come out. Is anyone really going to volunteer to maintain this article?TheRingess 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not really understanding your point about its ingredients. Most of the soft drink articles mention the sweetener used, caffeine content, etc. Although the carbs content probably comes off of the product itself (I wrote the original article, by the way) the apple juice content is distinctive among mainstream North American sodas. This article seems fairly standard for a second-tier product stub. On the other hand, about references: I'm not saying the article couldn't be improved by references, but, as an estimate, I'd say at least 95% of the articles on Wikipedia do not have listed references. When the statements in an article are not controversial and easily verifyable, references should not neccesarily be required, and by no means should a lack of them warrant an article's deletion. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your points are well made. Perhaps I am overzealous. I have only been editing Wikipedia for about 6 months and have a lot to learn.TheRingess 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- That lots of articles currently lack references is not an argument for not having references. Uncle G 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that this article can't be improved by having references, just that it doesn't need references as bad as many other articles might. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not really understanding your point about its ingredients. Most of the soft drink articles mention the sweetener used, caffeine content, etc. Although the carbs content probably comes off of the product itself (I wrote the original article, by the way) the apple juice content is distinctive among mainstream North American sodas. This article seems fairly standard for a second-tier product stub. On the other hand, about references: I'm not saying the article couldn't be improved by references, but, as an estimate, I'd say at least 95% of the articles on Wikipedia do not have listed references. When the statements in an article are not controversial and easily verifyable, references should not neccesarily be required, and by no means should a lack of them warrant an article's deletion. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding argumentative, when I read Wikipedias guidelines about providing references, I didn't see any caveats about criticality. The article does contain information about the ingredients, without providing a source, which suggests that its more a commercial than a genuine encyclopedia article. I also doubt that anyone is going to want to waste time updating this article as new flavors come out. Is anyone really going to volunteer to maintain this article?TheRingess 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- merge and redirect to 7-Up Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to 7up. Herostratus 05:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Expand, add references, and keep - two other 7 Up products (dnL and 7-Up Gold) have stand-alone articles, as do many other brands of soft drink (including Fresca, Mountain Dew, Tab, Pepsi Free, and Jolt Cola). B.Wind 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Are you going to do the expanding? If not, I say merge and wait until it outgrows. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Tim Rhymeless. Stifle 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge anything useful to 7up. Although some of it is already there. What is "2 carbs per serving" supposed to mean anyway?! Surely they mean calories. StealthFox 06:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Tim. -AKMask 14:21, 12 December 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.
