Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flavors of chewing gum

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of flavors of chewing gum[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically listcruft. Crystallina 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has to be a joke... · XP · 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:OR.--Hús ö nd 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as chewcruft. Actually, I wouldn't mind a representative list of kinds of gum added to chewing gum, but a list of flavors is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this is a list of the names of flavors, not an attempt to taxonomize the flavors themselves. Is "Cherry Chill" really different from "Cherry"? And what the heck flavor is "Blue Blowout"? Someone worked hard on this, and I don't want to denigrate that, but I don't think this should be retained. Pleather 07:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with suggestion that the author put this information in the articles about the brands. Gazpacho 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely useless listcruft. Many of the names are marketing-speak which doesn't tell anything about the flavours. JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. 23skidoo 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can hardly believe this exists! Guy 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete flavoured listcruft, do not swallow. QuagmireDog 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does he qualify for a Barnstar for triviality?--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this article constitutes indiscriminate information (and it falls under none of the categories listed on the policy page. The article is directly related to other articles in wikipedia (we have articles on chewing gum itself, as well as on individual brands like altoids, Trident gum, Bubblicious, etc., and flavors like spearmint and bubblegum). The information is also completely verifiable. Note that there are also related lists also in existence, like List_of_chewing_gum_brands. It's certainly as encyclopedic as many of the other lists on Wikipedia. It wasn't created just for the sake of creating a list. There are a lot of people who actively follow the chewing gum/candy/mint market, collect containers (like Altoids tins or tic tac boxes), and are interested in buying gum *across* the range of brands, not just within a particular brand. As a result this is actually a useful list for many people. The fact that Wikipedia has so many articles on individual flavors and brands demonstrates that fact in part. Ideally, it would be a section on the chewing gum page, except that it's clearly too long for that. If there were only, say, 12 chewing gum flavors in existence, nobody here would have a problem with listing them on the chewing gum page. But the list has become too long to be a sub-section, so it really needs its own article at this point. It is fairly comprehensive, although obviously not complete, and I'm the first to admit it needs some work. There are lists on wikipedia seemingly more trivial (i won't bother listing them here. you've all seen them). In many ways, a list of flavors of gum is analagous to a List of genres of music. It's true, they aren't taxonomized, but that's more of a reason to improve or reorganize the page than it is a reason to delete it. Also, yes, the flavors are "marketing-speak" to some degree, but so are brand-names (what does "Altoids" or "Kraft" really tell you about the products those companies manufacture and sell?) or book titles, and we certainly have lists of those. Also, somewhat as an aside, "marketing-speak" is actually of interest to many people. Although admittedly the consensus so far is to delete, that alone isn't reason to delete an article, i really think i've addressed the relevant issues here. -Bindingtheory 00:12, 28 September 2006 (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.