Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruktime


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fruktime

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

Non-notable soft drink produced by notable company. Should not be included in WP. Unable to find any significant English-language coverage, no significant Russian language coverage claimed. Bongo matic  13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still included in practically all Russian coverage on market share (most recent ones are, quite naturally, not available publicly), but the whole line appears to be in decline, poorly distributed, and I won't be surprised if CC drops it quietly. Maybe you are right and one line entry in List of Coca-Cola brands is sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per NOTPAPER. How can nominee claim "no significant Russian language coverage claimed" when there is page on the Russian wiki... (?).  I would leave it to the Russians to decide what drinks there are notable.  And what is a notable fizzy candy drink anaway, Wiki is not a paper. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations to Wikipedia are not sufficient as sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources? Bongo  matic  22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand Sources are available to establish notability in the English language and Russian language. Some of this sources should be included in the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:09, 16 January 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.