Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn on (second nomination)

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. Although this is below two-thirds to delete, Hoary gives a comprehensive rebuttal to the Google News stuff on which the bulk of the keepers rely. I don't find much meaning in a "keep because don't delete" comment. -Splash^talk 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turn on

Advertisement (for a brand of soda pop).

Although in view of the existence of Turn-On (a legitimate and irrelevant article), etc., and the likelihood that an article similar to this snake-oil ad (or yet another dicdef for the colloquial phrase) will be re-created, a redirect and page lock might be a better solution. (See the arguments on the earlier AfD page.) -- Hoary 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete SPAM Ruby 06:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm quite sure I saw this in the news a couple days ago. Let me run a Google News search Rory096 07:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

6 Google News results, all related. It's also been banned in France and Denmark, so they must care about it if they bother to ban it. Rory096 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a tiny news item. The (very short) CBS article says that the stuff is banned in France and Denmark because (unspecified) ingredients are banned; this doesn't imply to me that the relevant authorities in those countries have even heard of this particular soda pop, let alone that they care about it. -- Hoary 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad.--Porturology 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rory096 ComputerJoe 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: it needs considerable cleanup if it ends up being kept. -- Mithent 14:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite. As written, it is spam. Kuru 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Note that, as it was, this article is a copvio, but I'm rewriting it. Rory096 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Rory. —Ruud 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Sexual arousal. exolon 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about an aphrodisiac drink, not the term people use to mean sexual arousal. Rory096 19:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete good work by Rory but still not a keeper: nn promotional. AndyJones 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE per nom. Arbustoo 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Let's look again at those six news reports. That in the Boston Herald has a certain small amount of content; within it: "The beverage, which contains vitamins B-12 and B-6, has been banned in France and Denmark because 'all soft drinks containing vitamins are forbidden,' said [the company president]." The mathaba.net story is pretty vacuous and anyway comes from local6.com, so we're really down to five "news reports" -- though "report" is a stretch for any of them aside from that in the Herald. The Herald does tell us that the "key ingredient" is the alarmingly named "schizandra". Within WP, schizandra redirects to schisandra, which tells us that in traditional Chinese medicine it's used for various purposes -- none of them aphrodisiac. The rewritten article on Turn on is much less obviously awful than the one on which I slapped an AfD template, but it still tells us that Turn on is a cherry flavored soda that acts as an aphrodisiac when consumed. NB "acts as", not, say, "is claimed by those marketing it, if by nobody else, to act as". And so on and so on, and then: It is currently only sold via Turn On Beverages, Inc's website, but it will soon be available in stores nationwide. The former half looks a bit like a commercial come-on, the latter raises the question of which nation is discussed, and it seems to me to violate WP:NOT's rule that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Is the start of conventional retailing in any nation of soda pop that's claimed by its purveyor to be aphrodisiac a notable event? I say no it isn't. Meanwhile, WP seems to be notably and alarmingly willing to propagate commercial puffery. This looks less like an encyclopedia article, more like the spam emails that make it past my filters. It still deserves deletion. -- Hoary 06:24, 13 February 2006 (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.