Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubba Bubba soda

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 Hubba Bubba. Sandstein 07:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hubba Bubba soda[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Amisom (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to section in Hubba Bubba More appropriate as a sub-note in the gum article than stand-alone (also I want that soda again; it was delicious!). Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, "No assertion of notability" is absolutely not a criterion for deletion. It's just not. Read WP:ARTN. Secondly, this soda easily passes WP:GNG. Check this article in Spin Magazine and this discussion in AdWeek. If that's not enough, consider this food chem article which uses the pink goop as an experimental subject. Also, this is a really old kind of soda. While there is a lot of blogging about it on the web now, the chances are good that the best sources are offline for the most part. But there's enough to pass GNG, so we're done here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frequently makes lists of the top ten most remembered soft drinks.[1][2][3]. A product that well remembered after all those decades is surely notable. Not always remembered in a good way,[4] but tasting bad is fortunately not a rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps merge to Hubba Bubba - no sources in article is a good indication of its lack of notability. The refs suggested above are mere passing references. Sometimes we can have articles on"has been" products, but this was a "never was". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the refs found fall short of in-depth coverage, but "mere passing mentions" is a bit unfair. The book I linked (admittedly not on a relevant subject) goes on about the soda for a couple of pages. Most of the list articles give it a paragraph or so. The Spin article talks about it for about 120 words and includes some citable facts such as the manufacturer and country of origin. SpinningSpark 12:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A soda based upon the gum, so redirect to the gum. Szzuk (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Weak case for existence on its own. Makes much more sense as part of the Hubba Bubba narrative. Which are three words you rarely get to type together in this life. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2018 (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.