Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momints


 * 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 speedy keep. Procedural close. The nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding 'delete' !votes. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Momints

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has had no sources for 16 years, and consists mostly of original research. Does not meet criteria at WP:GNG; nothing beside trivial mentions. The only note-worthy article I could find is I've read through the article again, and the references seem sufficient enough to establish notability. Nom retracted. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mints. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep your jokes to yourself per WP:POINT and like. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, Mr Crankypants. But the thing is, there are 35 articles in Category:Breath mints. Some of those are stronger than this article, but a lot aren't; and I suppose that this article could be strengthened if anyone wants to. So it doesn't really make sense to just kind of thrash around in the category and delete parts of it at random. We want to take a more holistic approach to curating this subject, I think. Either do a WP:BUNDLE nom and make the case that our readers shouldn't know about breath mints generally, or leave it be. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , To which we have a simple reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - dead horse, etc. Bundle noms are a mess. Let's discuss Momints and see if we can rescue them - or not. After that discussion is finished, we can look at the next article from the series of 35. And so on and on. It's not like we need to hurry, and asking editors to look at 1 article at a time is better than asking them to look at few dozen which would scare most away. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But to the point that its a weak article that simply describes the entity, sure, but a whole honkin' lot of our articls are like that. Articles about mountains. About fungi species. About train stations. About villages. A lot of those just have proof-of-existence refs and are are two sentences long. The only reason for picking on this article and not those, is that they're about "serious" topics that you'd find in large general encyclopedia, and this article isn't. That not entirely indefensible, but kind of IMO, and I sure don't agree. We're not paper and we don't want to be snobs about curating what we cover. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article is a mess close to WP:TNT but this could be rescued if someone tried a rewrite. GBooks shows sources with some potential: Gearhart observed that Momints " captured chain - wide distribution at 7 - Eleven and for a short period of time they proved to be the number one mover in that particular piece of the category because of a lack of competition. I see few mentions in passing. Not enough for me to vote keep at this point, but enough to indicate this may not be a lost cause. Ping me if anyone finds better sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not any better, but here is a passing mention of the product's foundation and demise. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * here is a whole article in Packaging World. Quite a long and detailed article sufficient to support a fair amount of useful material. (The first time I went to the page it forced me to sign up, I in a bogus email address and it rejected it but then when I went to the page again it let me in.) Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did some more digging. This reads like a press release so I am not counting it (as it likely fails the requirement for independent coverage). Here is an academic ref but it fails SIGCOV (mention in passing for a single sentence, referenced to a press release). Here's another mention in passing in a trade journal: . Trade journal article, not sure how in-depth. Another niche article about related marketing campaign: . I am going to withdraw my weak delete and abstain as I think this is very borderline. There is a decent amount of non-indepth coverage and hints that there may be a second in-depth source, just not easily available online. And the product is defunct, so no spam concerns here (anymore, at least). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY. The article is quite significantly improved now and no longer a very good candidate for deletion. Thank you User:Orcaguy and User:Piotrus for providing the incentive to improve this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While the article has sources now, I'd still say it's not notable enough for inclusion. The article relies heavily on one reference; see WP:3REFS. Thank you for improving the article, but as it stands, there is only one reference used in the article with significant coverage, whereas the other one mentions the product in passing , not enough to establish notability.


 * Someone else could possibly disagree with either of our judgements on this article's notability, so I'll keep this AfD up. Best regards, Orcaguy (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll keep this AfD up... well that's right generous of you, heh.


 * Alright... I understand that y'all are in delete mode, but at this point deleting the article would be simple wanton destruction. It's a perfectly acceptable article now. It possibly doesn't quite exactly meet the WP:GNG (a mere guideline), depending on how you squint. But there's plenty of sources there to make a decent size article. And I mean, it is a breath mint. A breath mint. You are not going to find citations for in the The Lancet or Science or Time magazine, probably. So? That's true of a lot of mints -- and other things.


 * Again: if you want our coverage of mints to be limited to Certs and couple others, say so, and make your case in a general RfC somewhere, maybe List of breath mints. I don't know why, as we're not running out of server space; my general ideology is expressed at User:Herostratus/Wikipedian's Meditation. But YMMD.


 * So anyway, let's see. Right now the article has ten references -- one full short article, five which have maybe a sentence or two if that, and three about other stuff entirely. The articles got about seven paragraph equivalents. I'm going to be adding some more (no more full articles though), but let's take it from here. So, because I like to do this, I'll now look at 20 random articles and see how they're reffed compared to this one (so far) and how their size compares (size doesn't exactly equal quality, but it's a data point). Here goes.


 * Claremont Road Cricket Ground. Less ref'd, shorter article.
 * Yogetor spiralis. Less ref'd, shorter article.
 * Gujba college massacre. Better ref'd, longer article.
 * Public observatory. No ref's, shorter article. (Could be improved tho)
 * Konakalla Narayana Rao. Less ref'd, longer article. (Tagged for tone)
 * 2001 Davis Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group IV – Zone B. Worse ref'd (all just primary sources of scores), shorter article in terms of text (longer if you count table of game results).
 * New Jognasury- I. No refs, similar size.
 * Łuczynów, Kozienice County. Less ref'd, shorter size.
 * Thin layer extraction. Better ref'd, longer size.
 * Mindjedef. Similar level of ref'ing, shorter size.
 * Julie Vargas. Better ref'd, shorter article.
 * Nessa Feddis. Hard to tell on the refs; similar level I guess. longer article.
 * Walnut Grove, Sumner County, Tennessee. Worse refs, similar size article.
 * Calcium lactate gluconate. Just two refs, but one is extensive, so better ref'd I suppose. Shorter article.
 * Rugby union in Romania. Better ref'd I guess. Longer article.
 * Mount Nittany Medical Center. Similar level of refs at best. Shorter article.
 * Breuningiana pulchra. Worse ref'd. Shorter article.
 * List of city nicknames in Ohio. Better ref'd. Longer article, altho it's really just a long list.
 * Putah Creek State Wildlife Area. Worse ref'd, shorter article.`
 * Cultural depictions of Anne Boleyn. Worse ref'd. Longer article.


 * So I mean this article seems roughly in the middle. So there are three million articles worse than this one, three million better, maybe. So rather than just picking on random articles here and there, maybe you should start a general discussion and whether the Wikipedia is just too large and half the articles should be deleted. Who knows, maybe that'd be popular. Til thenm there's no reason to pick on this article particularly, and that approach just ends us with random holes here and there in our coverage. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I already told you this is a dead horse (OTHERSTUFF etc.). This article may be salvageable, the system works, no need to rant about it. Orcaguy identified a weak, borderline article and started a discussion that may result in this being improved - the jury is still out, IMHO this is very borderline. We all helped here, one way or another, no need to complain about anything. The system works. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This AfD is a disussion on Momints, not the other articles; WP:OTHERSTUFF. I know other, possibly worse, articles exist on this website, but that is none of my concern. Their notability may or may not be challenged at some point, but that has no outcome on whether this article's topic is notable. Your personal philosophy on deletion is, of course, welcome, but hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. My comments may seem dismissive, but the guidelines exist for a reason. Arguing for or against them here is scarcely pertinent to whether or not this article gets deleted or not. To clarify, my previous reply is in regards to WP:CON, and I'd like to adhere to the guidelines on this website. Orcaguy (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, as long as the article doesn't get deleted. "It was a poor article, but with some work it got WP:HEY'd to be a decent article, good article really considering the subject, but let's delete it anyway because reasons" isn't great. Yeah I get what you all are saying but I don't agree. We have a whole honkin' lot or rules and guidelines, they are supposed to help not hinder making an encyclopedia... let's see, article's existed for 16 years, it has... shuffle shuffle... 7 views a day so... 16x365x7=40,000 readers have accessed this article...so just answer me this: "For the 7 people a day who are searching on the term "momints", instead of going to this article they get a 404, and this would improve their experience because ______________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Current consensus is that notability of the subject is borderline, so the discussion would benefit more from additional participants.
 * weak keep, borderline per Piotrus. I found some relatively decent coverage on a search like this or (maybe) this and it's reasonable to assume more exists offline or on a site like Newspapers.com (I do have a subscription there, but my search just brings up mis-OCR's of "moment" or "morning". Herostratus's OSE arguments are not convincing, but but their cleanup is rather legit and I'd err towards keeping borderline articles rather than deleting them, unless we can be sure all relevant coverage has been found. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:NCORP can (not should, it can be ignored given such consensus exists) be applied to the subject.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep From the first read, I felt like the article was actually pretty interesting from a consumer product and marketing perspective. I could see this being useful for business students examining case studies for small products that are over-whelmed by large corporate competitors. When it comes to marketing, sources can be shoddy and self-promoting, but the sources here seemed to reasonably address this product- and good editing eliminated the industry jargon from said sources. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2021 (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.