Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinnamon Challenge


 * 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   no consensus. Sorry folks, but I can't see any other outcome to this discussion. Sources were found, but there is disagreement on their value. Several of the arguments made by both "keep" and "delete" commenters are invalid as far as a deletion discussion. Perhaps the discussion of merging this to the main article on cinnamon should continue at the appropriate talk page... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cinnamon Challenge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No doubt the eating of cinnamon for a bet or a sport exists, but there is no such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge." Drmies (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: this was deleted before but that wasn't linked because of the capitalization issue. See Articles for deletion/Cinnamon challenge. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I edit conflicted with Drmies to put a prod notification on the user's page as he was notifying of this discussion. What I said in my prod rationale was "unreferenced, no real indication of notability". Lady  of  Shalott  02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, unencylopedic. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this based upon a search for sources, or just an opinion that because as a popular culture phenomenon, it's too trivial, and thus, "non-notable"? See below for several reliable sources that have been added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is currently sourced at this time. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, not whether or not sources are present in articles. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be deleted for a lack of references in articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Strong Keep - There is such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge"; it is entirely existential, and is covered in reliable sources. Here's one (a newsblog article) I added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be people trying to outdo each other in all kinds of ways. Just now, on Saturday Night Live, "Charles Barkley" and "Shaq" were challenged: who can stand the longest on one leg. I like to challenge people in a game called "who knows more people called Mike Davis." So? For "speedy keep" you have to argue other things, like I'm a banned editor or the nomination was vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck speedy placed hastily. Doh. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - More sources added to the article, including coverage on ABC National news:
 * [Interjection by nominator:] I hope visitors to this AfD will click on this link to see what in some circles counts as reliable sources offering significant discussion. I've removed this from the article--to anyone who watches it it should be clear why. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources can also be used for verification purposes. ABC News is typically considered a news source of integrity, despite the "popular culture" theme of the piece. Also, importantly, please note that I referred to this source simply as "more sources" within the context of my statement. The statement above appears to be about what I consider "counting" as a reliable source (since I added the link), and is out of context in this case, because I didn't refer to this particular source as such. Additionally, primary and tertiary sources can be used for verification purposes, and passing mentions in a national newscast (even pop-culture news) from news sources with a history of editorial integrity can be used to verify information in articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [Interjection by nominator:] This is a couple of photos of a guy spooning some cinnamon. It takes place at a local radiostation, and the caption is this, "For this week’s 'Dancing With the Stunts' in-studio challenge, producer Josh took on the notoriously difficult 'cinnamon challenge.'" This was in the reference section, whence I removed it since it makes a mockery of the very concept of "reference." Drmies (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Speedy keep"? You've demonstrated that it does exist, but the sources are poor quality trivial coverage, not the significant discussion in third-party sources we need to show notability. Lady  of  Shalott  10:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the wording of the nomination, speedy keep criterion applies. The nominator stated that the term doesn't exist, when it actually does. This doesn't advance an argument for deletion, and because the topic and name actually exist, the opinion stated by the nominator has been nullified. Consider trying a search for reliable sources to add to the article, to improve the article, and hence, the Wikipedia project! Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, perhaps that would have applied if his had been the only opinion when you posted your information, or if other people were advocating deletion based on non-existence. However, other editors have in good faith advocated deletion based upon non-notability, and therefore a speedy keep is not possible, despite the flaw to the original argument. Lady  of  Shalott  14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Speedy keep"? You've demonstrated that it does exist, but the sources are poor quality trivial coverage, not the significant discussion in third-party sources we need to show notability. Lady  of  Shalott  10:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the wording of the nomination, speedy keep criterion applies. The nominator stated that the term doesn't exist, when it actually does. This doesn't advance an argument for deletion, and because the topic and name actually exist, the opinion stated by the nominator has been nullified. Consider trying a search for reliable sources to add to the article, to improve the article, and hence, the Wikipedia project! Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, perhaps that would have applied if his had been the only opinion when you posted your information, or if other people were advocating deletion based on non-existence. However, other editors have in good faith advocated deletion based upon non-notability, and therefore a speedy keep is not possible, despite the flaw to the original argument. Lady  of  Shalott  14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete trivial sources demonstrate existence but not notability RadioFan (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Out of curiosity and for clarification, are you basing this upon a search for sources, or just sources currently in the article? Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Both. There is coverage, and even in what easily passes as reliable sources, but it's not the kind of significant coverage that WP:GNG requires.  Even the Washington Post blog entry is a space filler.--RadioFan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with RadioFan. The Washington Post piece is the only one that even approaches what we would need, and it is not sufficient. (The SI piece has it as a brief entry in a list.) There just is not the kind of in depth discussion in reliable sources we need to meed the WP:GNG. Lady  of  Shalott  18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's another RS, recently added: Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - More coverage in major reliable sources I added to the article from The Washington Post; an entire newsblog article about the Cinnamon Challenge. I also added coverage from a newsblog in Sports Illustrated. I can't help but wonder if some of the !votes to delete are based upon opinion that as a cultural phenomenon, the topic itself is too trivial and thus the article should be deleted, despite the fact that it's been covered in many reliable sources. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which address the topic in detail, and in major news sources to boot. Furthermore, newsblogs that are under editorial control by their publishers are absolutely valid as reliable sources. More reliable sources added:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Article has been renamed to a more specific title: Cinnamon Challenge (competition). Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? There's no need for disambiguation. If it persists at all, it should be at Cinnamon challenge (note case), as this is an unofficial thing that some people do, not an actual event (which, I think, is what Drmies meant by "there is no such thing as the 'Cinnamon Challenge'" in his opening comment - he'll correct me if I've interpreted incorrectly, I'm sure). Lady  of  Shalott  18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. We cant (easily) go back to the original name and the one you suggest is far better.  This isn't anything that warrants such title capitalization. --RadioFan (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed--this isn't the Sugar Bowl or even the Skechers Shape-Ups How I Met Your Mother Trojan Minis Bowl. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - I very much dislike disagreeing with my good friend Drmies, but looking at the citations from reliable sources that are in the article now, this seems notable enough and as worthy of coverage as Goldfish swallowing and Flagpole sitting. People do dumb things, and if enough of them do the same dumb thing at around the same time, the resulting fad is encyclopedic as part of popular culture. I wouldn't be unhappy to see it converted into a section of Cinnamon with a redirect, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well BMK, I am depressed, as Taggart said to Lyle. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, were you swayed by this or by this? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I was swayed before I got to those refs, by WaPo and SI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: after looking through the references, I can't help but wonder if we've entered an alternate reality. I mean, this was added as a reference. As if it offered significant discussion in a reliable source. It is, in fact, a rather poor attempt at "fun" by a blogger writing for SI. If the person who added this to the article is serious, that this is something to build an encyclopedia on, then they should immediately write articles on The Twinkies Challenge ("ingest three twinkies in 60 seconds") and The Wendy's Challenge ("put the entire contents of a Wendy's kids meal into a blender (small hamburger, fries and Sprite), and ingest it in five minutes"). I assume it's Northamerica who added this "reference"? If by this time tomorrow (roughly, after the Wing Eating Challenge I'll be engaging in for the Bama game) there are no such articles, then I know you were in fact not serious. And how could you be? (Yes, this is a challenge: Put your money where your mouth is.) Drmies (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are other reliable sourcesw for those "challenges" then they should be covered as well. The encyclopedia should not be limited to those things which reasonable people do not find to be absurd; there are many unreasonable people out there doing absurd things, and our distaste for those activities should not be a factor in determining whether they are worthy of coverage or not. Personally, I find the July 4th hot dog-eating contest to be among the stupider things done by Homo sapiens c.2000, but my disdain for it doesn't mean that I don't recognize it as an event worthy of encyclopedic notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on stupid, but that article is about a well-documented and noteworthy event, which deserves its capitals. FWIW, I prefer Hebrew National. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another newsblog reliable source reference added, that addresses the topic in detail, from The Joplin Globe. Topic is passing WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've made significant improvements to the article, including a section about safety concerns regarding the the Cinnamon challenge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete improvements aside, this is still a unremarkable topic that does not meet notability guidelines. It's just a silly prank. Despite the presence of references, we should Ignore all rules and delete this article.  It's doesn't improve Wikipedia, it takes away.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a rather subjective interpretation of topic notability. If all articles were to be gauged under these types of arguments, then any article could hypothetically be removed from Wikipedia based upon personal opinion of the topic, rather than whether or not a topic's covered in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Not Capybara. Or Coffee. Or Hurricane Andrew. Or Sugar Bowl. Etc. In your view, I think, any trivial mention constitutes "coverage" and just about anything counts as a reliable source, including brochures run off with a mimeograph in five-fold and deposited in the local library. Sure, there are matters of interpretation here, but to propose that only the "other side" is guilty of "rather subjective interpretations" is disingenuous. After all, you considered a series of photos of a radio jock eating some cinnamon "coverage." Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The Washington Post coverage is significant and specifically about this. It gets mentioned ample places elsewhere as well.  All combined, I'd say it was notable.   D r e a m Focus  22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple Washington Post sources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am still not convinced by the quality of the sources. They just are not good. Lady  of  Shalott  14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: If this is encyclopedic... then what is not? The threshold of Wiki-acceptance needs to be set higher than this. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - What would that threshold be? Could you be more specific? Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Well rescued by Northamerica1000. The Joplin Globe and Washington Post references satisfy the general notability guideline. The other references are weaker, but their inclusion surely doesn't hurt. Melchoir (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some of the sources are used to verify information. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources show that it can be considered notable. Plus the warnings about potential dangers have got to be a good thing. BigJim707 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * there are still concerns with the depth of coverage here and usefullness of the article doesn't really establish notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Stunt fails WP:EVENT. Edison (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:EVENT is an entire notability guideline page for events. Which of the sections or points of the page does this topic fail? All of them, some of them? Which ones? Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep. The fad's got references. (When's the Apocalypse?) Now sing after me: "A spoonful of references helps the article stick around, in a most disgruntled way". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep A very commonly known and popular challenge, and a likely search term because of its popularity. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and unique passtime, I saw it featured on 1,000 way to die. I think we also have an article on idiots that die from water drinking/retention contests.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge I don't find the coverage significant for own article. Mt  king  (edits)  03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge It should be merged to either the "Cinnamon" article or an article about dare games. LukePhiladelphia (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many of the "delete" votes here are because "it is a stunt" or "it is a prank". Where in the deletion guidelines is this mentioned? It is not. As per the reliable sources, it is not a hoax, and thus passes inclusion criteria. Please read WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:IDL. A412  (Talk * C) 00:28, 24 January 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.