Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican Coke

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. If any user wishes to propose merging, that can be done on the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Coke[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion for the following reasons. 1 - Notability - many other international brands of this product exist and do not receive an article. 2 - NPOV - This article is heavily slanted from the US perspective (ironically, given its subject matter). 3 - the subject matter is not factual but rather one of perception and opinion among a minority of individuals in the US and one of the cited sources suggests that it is a 'myth'. There are also a number of problems with the unencyclopedic writing style of this article (although these could be corrected). --Christopher (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 5. Snotbot t • c » 10:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, significant coverage with dedicated articles in two major newspapers. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, if any it's a reason to expand the article with a balanced viewpoint, assuming there are reliable sources to establish a different viewpoint. Reason #3 if true would also not be a reason to delete, Wikipedia covers all kind of topics that are not factual. Diego (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly as per Diego, this is not the purpose of AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability already demonstrated by the existing article, and additional potential sources may be gulped from the fountain of results at GNews [1], GBooks [2], HighBeam [3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coca-Cola – This is not a separate brand or product, just an unofficial term used to describe Coca-Cola that has been imported from Mexico to the United States. When it's still in Mexico it's just called "Coca-Cola", and anywhere else in the world it's not any more special than Coke imported from any other country. I'd argue that the regional variation of a global brand doesn't generally warrant a separate article (There's no need for "New Zealand Marmite" or "European Nutella", for example, even if the differences in formulae have received significant coverage in reliable sources). What's notable isn't really the product itself, but the phenomenon wherein some consumers in a certain country prefer a grey-market version of the product. This content either belongs in Coca-Cola, or with a title with less regional bias, like "Consumption of imported Coca-Cola in the United States". And given how little content there actually is in this article, I'd suggest it just be merged. Ibadibam (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is a separate product, as defined by packaging, size and market. We can't control what sources find notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the packaging. As to notability, I've taken a stab at editing the lead to reduce regional bias and define the topic in such as way that its notability is clearer. See what you think. Ibadibam (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The other contribs have stated very good reasons to keep, wjith which I agree. Plus the stuff is pretty tasty...--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My argument would be summed up by this article in the New York Times. Ryan Vesey 03:55, 10 April 2013 (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.