Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Bites


 * 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. JForget 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Buzz Bites

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM. Was speedied deleted previously as spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW, as well as WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Geoff  TC 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Vacuous, no assertion of WP:GNG (apart from "Each chew has 100 mg of caffeine"). Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22buzz+bites%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) indicates that the item is notable.--Pink Bull (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. The article has been been significantly improved since the above delete votes. Multiple sources have been added, which clearly establish notability. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Yes there are a few sources, but they are relatively trivial mentions for the most part. I wouldn't object to a redirect to an 'Energy Candy' article as that is what the sources are about. Quantpole (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources are trivial. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per my origional nom. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. It's unfair to describe the coverage given by CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2005/02/01/8250628/index.htm) or Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/travel/article/0,31542,1869928,00.html) as "press releases", "trivial coverage", or "mentions". Both articles are specifically about Buzz Bites. These two articles combined with the other articles - which granted - are not that in depth, should be enough to meet the WP:N notability criteria. Sincerely,--Pink Bull (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.