Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzz Bites (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Buzz Bites
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for Products. Has links but they are merely trivial coverage or mentions and fail product WP:CORPDEPTH as its simply inclusion in lists of similar products. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article coverage exists in electronic media, but not any significantly credible way. The product certainly is not revolutionary, and not likely to break headlines anytime in the future. Recommend delete unless better sources can be identified and added to article. T.I.M(Contact) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepPLEASE HELP!!!!! KEEP THIS ARTICLE!  This product does achieve WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTABILITY for Products! On google search,  where to buy them, forums about them, articles about them, etc.  are on at least the first 43 pages of results!  (When other similar products that are on Wikipedia are googled, the results are similar, but the pages fewer. -see Penguin Mints and Bawls Mints)  The references used include The Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, Time Magazine and the Houston Chronicle - RELIABLE!!!
 * More on Notability: This product is revolutionary, as Buzz Bites were the first chocolates to be enhanced with extra caffeine. They have lasted the test of time as an avalanche of copycat products have come and gone. They have been available nationwide and internationally for 8 years. I will add more links. Please don't delete this page until I have had a chance to respond to the below comments. A few years back the article I had created for my favorite energy candy, Buzz Bites, was deleted. (I also love Foosh Energy Mints and and have redone the article I created for them, too). I have been working to have these on Wikipedia for years! These products give people like me, who don't drink coffee, an alternative source of caffeine. I have tried many such products and these are by far the best. The company who makes them somehow found a way to mask the bitterness of caffeine. Penguin mints are yummy, but only have 7 mg of caffeine, versus the 100 in Buzz Bites. People who buy Buzz Bites or see them around will check the internet to see what they are all about and Wikipedia is a good first place to look for reliable information. Thank you for any help you can give to get this to meet all guidelines!!! Matushka (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Moved and reformatted misplaced comment by Matushka. הסרפד  (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Buzz Bites was speedily deleted previously as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM, recreated then deleted @ AfD as spam. This is a reemergence and a continuation of an older promotional campaign by Vroom Foods, Inc (and ) to exploit Wikipedia for Advertising purposes, see also - Buzz Bites Spam case. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Apparently, these (and Foosh Energy Mints) "are by far the best," according to Matushka. The comments in favor of keep support a decision to delete this article as blatant spam. Geoff  Who, me?  00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I Agree 100% with Hu12 that Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"! I am not trying to advertize here, just to inform!  I am certainly NOT a spammer! It wasn't spam when I first tried to write this article, and it is not spam now.  When someone wants to know about things,  Wikipedia informs.  How is it that Penguin Mints, Bawls Mints, Tic Tacs, Think Gum, etc can have articles, but not my favorites?  Is it spam because in this afD debate I say I like them the best?  Why is this product spam and not all the others on Wikipedia?  Why did someone remove all of the links to make this an orphan?  Isn't being called a spammer a personal attack, which is against the Wikipedia personal attack policy? I am obviously not a professional. I am confused and hurt by the above comments.  Please explain.Matushka (talk)
 * Matushka: if you will follow the trail of links, you will see that this product and related products have been the subject of large spam campaigns with numerous sockpuppets who wasted many editors' time, so even if you created this article in complete good faith, you will have to excuse other editors for jumping down your throat... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - For the same reason that Foosh Energy Mints is problematic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a compendium of everything.  As such, every topic including Buzz Bites needs to meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, andin this case, additional guidance on inclusion is available for companies and its products.  There are certainly articles in newspapers mentioning this product in conjunction with other energy mints or candies, but I did not see significant coverage about the product or the company that would meet the inclusion criteria noted here.  I understand the article's creator has a passion for the product, but that is not sufficient reason to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (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.