Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Materva

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Materva[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable product. References are blogs and product pages. Google shows no extensive coverage from a reliable source to support even general notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a famous Cuban drink. I'm dying to rescue the article for deletion but Google News archives simply disappeared, thus the lack of Google hits in news (for now). I'll look for some Spanish sources. Secret ^account 23:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article I began, so keep. Antonio el Controversial Martin ^dime 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present it is of purely local (Miamai) interest, and not much of that. Fails basic notability. It is possible (unlikely) that its pre-1960 history in Cuba could provide adequate notability, but there are no sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please keep this article. I was trying to find info on this product and was very glad to find this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.7.150 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this page is deleted, and the distributors get rid of the Flash application that they use so that search index tools can find them, they would be the place to find information on the product. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a marketing tool. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Saying "this is only important in Miami" is quite wrong; it's a highly-smuggled product into Cuba; i.e., it has high cultural significance to an entire country. (And Googling for extensive coverage of a pre-war product in a different language is not a very good test for notability.) Admittedly not a high-quality article at present, but it should be improved/retained, not deleted. -LuisVilla (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, could be moved to the draft namespace, I suppose, for improvement and later reinstatement? -LuisVilla (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources meet the level of quality I expect as reliable sources for mass-market products in Cuba, and the claims made in the article meet my expectations for what a product article should claim. The "3guys" site and the temperance drinks site purport to present knowledgeable perspectives on Cuban cuisine. Both of them purport to be doing product presentations without any connection to the manufacturer and seem not to have a commercial interest in the product. The temperance drink website says that it is affiliated with a museum. These are not world-class academic sources, but they are acceptable sources for what they are communicating. I dispute the nominator's characterization of these sites as blogs, although the cawny website cited seems to be the drink manufacturer's homepage. There are two passable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Blue Rasberry. High quality independent sources for this are not easy to find online, but there is enough to confirm the significance of this beverage to Cuban and Cuban-American food culture. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in a book called .Sabor!: A Passion for Cuban Cuisine. It is described as "the old Cuban standby soda" in Hamburger America: Completely Revised and Updated Edition: A State-by-State Guide to 150 Great Burger Joints. It is mentioned as among the items that a "Cuban cook buys regularly at the grocery store or bodega" in a book called The Cuban Kitchen. In a book called Conflicting Loyalties, it is described as "a soft drink that would vaguely remind American palates of cream soda". The product is mentioned frequently in Cuban-American novels and memoirs. I have searched only for English language sources and am certain that much more coverage exists in Spanish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each of the four sources are only mentions of the product. Notability requires significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are many, many sources in English. Have you searched in Spanish? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Spanish language source describing the history of the company on the death of a key figure in the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single word is not even in combination, particularly when one is a menu! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was that comment written in English, or translated from another language? I am having trouble parsing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have a life and I wanted to get back to it and I was typing too quickly. What I meant to write was "A single word is not even a combination, particularly when one reference is a menu!" The mentions of the product are throw-aways and certainly do not confer notability on the product. Once again, sorry, and the product isn't notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your comment, though I've tried. By "menu", were you referring to the list of ingredients in Cuban cuisine? Let's agree to disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, I've substantially revised the article. It now has more than a dozen citations, including two cites describing this as a standard Cuban drink, and two (one in Spanish) noting the role of the drink in nostalgia for Cuban-Americans. I think those four in particular support the significance of the drink/article. (I will probably expand on that area after I receive another source.) COI disclosure: I'm now going to get the last one out of my fridge and drink it. ;) —LuisVilla (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still doesn't meet GNG which states that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw this yesterday but had a connectivity problem. This topic obviously goes well beyond WP:GNG in English even, let alone Spanish. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then show them to me. You are obviously not looking at the four listed above because they do not meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, I'm looking at English, Spanish, French sources. Sorry but this topic/article is so far from even being questioned that it's not worth discussing. Now is long past the time to close as WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. ~~Sources may be not the most prestigious but a bit of research could easily find some.~~ Sources are actually a bit more reputable than I have expected. It doesn't seem to be overtly biased or promotional. Also, SNOWBALL. Also, u mad? Ellomate (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (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.