Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotsmac (2nd nomination)

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. I think that there is enough participation here to determine that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotsmac[edit]

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

I know that this article was nominated for deletion (by me, actually) a year and a half ago and survived (though by today's standards, it would've probably been NC instead). However, why I did exactly seems an anathema to me...though it was claimed references did exist, none were added. The article continues to consist primarily of weasel statements . I did do a search to satisfy BEFORE concerns...there aren't that many references to it in Google Books, and only a few in Google Scholar. Many of these appear to either be about a science project also named "SCOTSMAC", or are fleeting references to the potable that don't discuss it in detail. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the previous discussion, I'd point to the various references out there - a thin spread but nonetheless discernable (like Marmite perhaps). I've added a couple into the article tonight, including one newspaper article since the previous AfD. (I've also flagged some extremely dubious content added by a new editor today.) Is it enough to establish notability though? As with the previous AfD, I haven't put a keep/delete as I really can't make up my mind. AllyD (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Whisky Paradise most likely isn't reliable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the one that was already there. It does look accurate but short of WP:RS. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "dubious content". Ben Mac Dui 08:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure about this one. My instinct says probably keep, but I'm reluctant to give it the !vote endorsement without better reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Third-party coverage in GNews isn't great, but if it's sold extensively in a couple of discount chains that just about puts it over the bar (although I'll bow to the expertise of Netto and Lidl experts here). The main issue was the dubious puffery, but that's now been removed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without any enthusiasm, largely per previous discussion. Sources indicate that like Scotland's pride, Buckfast Tonic Wine, this inexpensive fortified wine has attracted attention from the public-health nithings[1]. The Books references that refer to this product rather than the SCOTSMAC research project are indeed several incidental mentions. (E.g. [2][3][4]) These incidental references show that Scotsmac is something of a culturally significant touchstone. To this, add the fact that non-Scots who come across this name are unlikely to know what it's talking about, and as such may inspire genuine curiosity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 21 March 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.