Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolatta

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 was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coolatta

Coolatta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable product. It's mentioned at Dunkin' Donuts#Products, but why a separate article is warranted remains unclear to me. PROD was removed with comment: "Remove from proposed deletion as appears notable". I disagree. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There is some media coverage. I haven't had a chance to look at everything yet, though. Zagalejo^^^ 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DrinkDelete - As fine as an icy fruity collata is on a hot day, this product has not acheived WP:N like (for example) a Big Mac or a Whopper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lifebaka . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this product doesn't contain enough notability to stand on its own. Alternatively, redirect to Dunkin' Donuts. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This single product isn't notable enough to have its own article. — Wenli (reply here) 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Lots and lots of GNews hits, over 200 giving its history, its marketing, and other information. All the requirements needed for Wikipedia, just like an other article on a product. See: [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Straightforward product spam, borderline G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That makes no sense. Can you rephrase that in English please? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
He means he thinks it's an advertisement. Spacepotato (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Reliable sources appear to exist, but the article needs serious cleanup to make it less ad-sounding. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE/CleanupNo sources are mentioned and a lot of cleanup needed such as to include sources on page.--Quek157 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since apparently there are ample sources available, the article is already off to a great start. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; adequate press coverage of this product available, as a Google News search will show. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see that there's enough coverage to warrant an article independent of the manufacturer. Also, quite a few of thos Google hits seem like republished press releases to me. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a frozen pureed coffee beverage article to merge/redirect this to? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe a merge to Dunkin' Donuts would fit, but I don't see why an extended "nutrition information" section or ingredients list is worth any merging. We're not a product catalog. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Some reliable sources are proving its notability.So, it's not spam at all--NAHID 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge w/ Dunkin Donuts, the sources are available so as long as the information is available either one will suffice. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs cleanup, that's why it is tagged. AfD is not cleanup, and other sources seem to exist. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (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.