Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy gum trick


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Snappy gum trick

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I put a notability tag on this article in October 2006, and there have been no improvements since then. Seems to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. → Ed Gl  03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - yeah kill it, that product is pretty much self-explanatory if you go and buy it. Guroadrunner 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a pretty popular prank. Article needs work, though. --Candy-Panda 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean-up the article, is a very popular trick toy.
 * Keep, there're over 50.000 Google hits for this keyword. Though the article violates WP:MOS and WP:CITE and WP:RS, it still worth keeping. Appleworm 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, your search above was for articles which had ANY of the three words "snappy", "gum" and/or "trick". When you search for the exact phrase "snappy gum trick" there are only 22 hits. Dugwiki 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; all this means is that (possibly) the trick isn't widely-known under that specific name. If that's the case, and a more widely-used name exists, the page could be moved, but the trick itself *is* a fairly widespread one. Fourohfour 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - a classic gag, the encyclopedia could hardly be called encyclopedic without it, WP:IAR - Arch NME 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although potential merge candidate- does this warrant an article on its own? Still, I have seen these on several occasions, so it at least deserves some form of inclusion. Fourohfour 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending cleanup and references The gag itself is real and probably verifiable, and the article even has a good snapshot of an actual package with a snappy gum packet. It was also a classic gag staple in cartoons like Tom and Jerry.  So I would lean toward keeping the article, but will point out that it will eventually need proper references and some cleanup.  If the article is never properly referenced I might be forced to reconsider. Dugwiki 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dugwiki, keep in mind a notability tag has been sitting on this article for nearly half a year, and nobody has helped the article improve. I can certainly see an argument to keep the article, but I fear nobody will do anything about its poor state. → Ed Gl  22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I didn't realize that the reference issue has been sitting there for over a year already. In that case, I'll revise my recommendation to Delete pending references Dugwiki 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATT -- just because it's the oldest gag in the book doesn't trump attribution. I removed the "A better way..." portion, as it's completely original research.  /Blaxthos 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has been tagged for quite some time now with no attempts to fix the notability and sourcing problems. Should be undeleted if someone comes forward who would be willing to work on the article. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't think the concept in itself is fully warranting of a full page. Suriel1981 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But merge where? It helps to let folks know where you think it should go.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak merge. Possibly merge a sentence or two to Practical joke.  -- Black Falcon 07:33, 6 March 2007 (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.