Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxton Fizz
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 keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foxton Fizz
notability, (google only gives 10 hits when you search - 9 w/o WP Chevinki 07:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I get about 296 for "Foxton Fizz" -wikipedia and they seem to be about the drink too. Rich257 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's really bizarre. I typed it in 3x last night just to make sure I got the spelling right and the results correct. Now google's listing 1,430 results. Is this a google thing? And it's worth pointing out that most of the referenced pages are still mentioning the drink in their myspace or in a forum post. That's still not that notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chevinki (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Chevinki 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I just checked now and there are only 396 Google hits when I typed in "Foxton Fizz" -wikipedia. - PoliticalJunkie 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak maybe, there was an article in the Evening Standard halfway across the world, and the drink has been around for 70 years according to the preview. If sourced I could vote keep. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-known soft drink within New Zealand (though I doubt it would be known overseas, hence the reliance by others on Googletesting and WP:HOLE. Deleting this may actually be regarded as a case of increasing the already inherent Wikipedia:Systemic bias if those are the only methods being used. It also passes the first criterion of notability for companies, having been written about as the subject of an independent source's writing: Television new Zealand and [] Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand. FWIW, it's a moderately notable company, and the fizz itself is pretty tasty, though not as good as Wests. Grutness...wha? 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both those references are very shallow. Foxton Fizz barely merited a mention in the New Zealand encyclopedia. I doubt it deserves mention in Wikipedia. So far I haven't seen any sources that make me regard it as notable. The depth of coverage is trivial as layed out in WP:ORG. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not make it notable. Chevinki 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the TVNZ reference is not shallow: the text is, but the video is not (click on "Close Up: Foxton Fizz (5:54)"). A 6-minute segment on a national TV network is rather non-trivial. By the way, I missed the video the first time around. -- Black Falcon 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both those references are very shallow. Foxton Fizz barely merited a mention in the New Zealand encyclopedia. I doubt it deserves mention in Wikipedia. So far I haven't seen any sources that make me regard it as notable. The depth of coverage is trivial as layed out in WP:ORG. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not make it notable. Chevinki 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Grutness — notable within region/country.Rich257 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:LOCAL. Yes, it's just an essay (and one which I've noted just once or twice before), but I think it applies well in this case. I will incorporate the sources provided above into the article. Oh, and I find 427 ghits ... -- Black Falcon 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sources added and cleanup performed. Much information about the drink is given in the video, so one could use that as an additional source. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 13 March 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.
