Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Norwegian soft drink)

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. The nominator withdrew the nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (Norwegian soft drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. Article claims that this is the most popular Norwegian soda, but no:Solo (brus) is as lacking in content as the English version. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely notable, has an entry in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia (see SNL). For years Norway's most-sold soft drink and one of the strongest Norwegian domestic brands. Has a rich history and the article could include the inception (import from Sweden), the development as the first nationally-sold soft drink brand in Norway, ownership (the brand is owned and marketed as a partnership), in addition to the history and current production, distribution, varieties etc. A check in newspaper databases shows hundreds of relevant articles which strengthen the notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: quite notable. If you haven't researched Norwegian newspapers before, I'll let you know that google does not pick up a lot of their content, you have to go thru individual archives.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. Its annoying to run across an AfD like this. If you don't know how to research foreign sources, don't nominate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, you nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Enuf too? How many of these are there?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how to research foreign sources, don't create the article in the first place. I agree that the sources you've added are a start towards showing notability, but they should have been there when the article was created, or sometime in the half-dozen years after. This article is poorly written, and has been here six years without sourcing. no:Solo (brus) is even worse. Deleting the article isn't going to make the drink any less popular, and if sourcing is found a referenced article can be created. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, the sourcing culture here on wikipedia was completely different--articles frequently had no sources. Close your nom now, you have no business making this AfD nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well holy shit, cupcake. Calm it down a notch. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, probably so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lol has thawed my frozen nominator's heart. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the added sources. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources seem quite sufficient. This is a Norwegian cultural icon. __meco (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Although we could use more material for a decent article, Milowent's sourcing has show sufficient foreign-language notability for inclusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 23 February 2012 (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.