Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foosh Energy Mints (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Foosh Energy Mints}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foosh_Energy_Mints_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Foosh Energy Mints}})

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for Products. Has links but they are merely trivial coverage or mentions and fail product WP:CORPDEPTH as its simply inclusion in lists of similar products. A [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Foosh+Energy+Mints%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 google search] shows only press releases, product updates and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Hu12's claim sums it all up, article clearly fails Notability guidelines per reason of WP:Corp. Main contributor has made no indication to address the issue, either, leaving me to recommend it be deleted. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Found nothing. Corn cheese (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I only put this up today and I do intend to try to fix it. PLEASE HELP!!!!! KEEP THIS ARTICLE! This product does achieve WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTABILITY for Products, even if my poor article might not yet. On Notability: Foosh was the first highly caffeinated mint. It came out after penguin mints, which are tasty, but only have 7 grams of caffeine. Foosh Energy Mints have lasted the test of time as they have been available nationwide and internationally for 8 years. The sources are reliable. I will add more links. Please don't delete this page until I have had a chance to respond to the above comments. Back in 2009, the articles I created for my favorite energy candy, Foosh Energy Mints and Buzz Bites, were deleted. (I have been trying to have these on Wikipedia for years!) These products give people like me, who don't drink coffee, an alternative source of caffeine. I have tried many such products and these are by far the best. The company who makes them somehow found a way to mask the bitterness of caffeine. Penguin mints are yummy, but only have 7 mg of caffeine, versus the 100 in Buzz Bites. People who buy Buzz Bites or see them around will check the internet to see what they are all about and Wikipedia is a good first place to look for reliable information. Thank you for any help you can give to get this to meet all guidelines!!! Respectfully, Matushka (talk)
• Comment. Foosh Energy Mints was speedily deleted four times prior once as WP:CSD#A7 and twice as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM advertising and once at a previous AFD. This is a reemergence and a continuation of an older promotional campaign by Vroom Foods, Inc (and {{User|Matushka}}) to exploit Wikipedia for Advertising purposes, see also - Foosh Energy Mints Spam case. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently, these (and Buzz Bites) "are by far the best," according to Matushka. The comments in favor of keep support a decision to delete this article as blatant spam. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I Agree 100% with Hu12 that Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"! I am not trying to advertize here, just to inform! I am certainly NOT a spammer! It wasn't spam when I first tried to write this article, and it is not spam now. When someone wants to know about things, Wikipedia informs. How is it that Penguin Mints, Bawls Mints, Tic Tacs, Think Gum, etc can have articles, but not my favorites? Is it spam because in this afD debate I say I like them the best? Why is this product spam and not all the others on Wikipedia? Why did someone remove all of the links to make this an orphan? Isn't being called a spammer a personal attack, which is against the Wikipedia personal attack policy? I am obviously not a professional. I am confused and hurt by the above comments. Please explain. Matushka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a compendium of everything. As such, every topic including Foosh Energy Mints needs to meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, andin this case, additional guidance on inclusion is available for companies and its products. There are certainly articles in newspapers mentioning this product in conjunction with other energy mints or candies, but I did not see significant coverage about the product or the company that would meet the inclusion criteria noted here. I understand the article's creator has a passion for the product, but that is not sufficient reason to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete What this article needs is some published evidence that this particular product is important, and for articles like this, the GNG is the only way we have of telling. General sources about such foods, or articles that merely mention it , are not sufficient. Promotionalism, Matushka, does not mean only commercial promotionalism. It means promoting anything commercial or non commercial; it can mean promoting a cause. It doesn't matter how valuable or worthy it is--we still avoid it. I don't see the current article as particularly promotional, but your intent was; that makes it difficult to write a good article. But it is nonetheless possible, provided you can find enough good sources to write a proper sourced article, based on the sources, not your own personal knowledge of the product. . The famous candies you mention have such sources. Our terms of notability and COI and promotionalism are "terms of art," terms used here in a special sense in our special context, and people who are not aware of this are sometimes rather taken aback by it. Perhaps we should find ones without the implications, but we haven't been able to. And, unfortunately WP is these days beset by such extensive true commercial promotionalism and writing by press agents that there tends to be a certain amount of suspicion, which is justified 95% of the time. So we apologize, but it still is not now suitable as an encyclopedia artivcle. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (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.