Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stappj

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 merge to List of soft drinks by country#Italy. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stappj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has one source, and written so far from encyclopaedic that even if found notable, would need to be WP:TNTed. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of it specifically is not notable? --Rockysantos (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockysantos: You're an experienced editor I think the nomination was clear enough -- there simply doesn't seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources. I also see that you just created an article in Italian, unreferenced. The Gnews results in English aren't great but it seems to be a fairly well-known brand. Can you add a few Italian-language news refs? Do they exist? They surely must. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I was not able to find much whether in English nor Italian. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article can be improved.--Rockysantos (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockysantos, all articles can be improved, but that doesn't make their topics notable (and it's not like this hasn't been given any time, it's over 11 years old). How do you think this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be an interesting and distinctive beverage. The worst case would be to merge into something like list of soft drinks by country. Andrew D. (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG. There are some bad parts of the article, but none so egregious that I will be dropping everything to TNT it at this moment. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I encourage people to invest the next week in researching and evaluating sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me still looks like an interesting article, does it really need to be relisted again?
Keep appears to be notable. If you think it needs to be cleaned up, fix it instead of demanding that it be deleted. CJK09 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find a decent source. However, the "delete" !votes above fail WP:ATD. Merge to List of soft drinks by country#Italy.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of soft drinks by country § Italy. Not finding significant coverage to qualify a standalone article, but a merge will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of soft drinks by country § Italy for lack of sufficient sourcing; not independently notable. I note that the "Keep" voters have not offered any sources, as in: "looks like an interesting article". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.