Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Gum


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Think Gum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertions of notability. Article was up for speedy as advertising, but seems to hold aim for an objective POV. Taemyr (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nominator. Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Missed previous incarnations of this page; and .  General criteria 4 for speedy deletion might apply, although as stated in the introduction I feel that the article as written does aim for objectivity. Taemyr (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * G4 only applies for previous AfD's not speedies. Speedy or not, still Delete. Martijn Hoekstra 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that think gum deserves a Wikipedia page letting people know what it is. It is a new and unique item and not many people can find information about what it is in other venues. Other similar product pages exist on Wikipedia such as Jolt Gum, Aspergum, Airbourne (dietary supplement), Bawls, Stride (gum), ....The list goes on and on. Practically every product available in every store has a Wikipedia page so that anyone, can find out what it is when they hear about it. That is why Wikipedia is here, to inform people about something they don't know about or want to get more information on. The fact that Think Gum it is a commercial product does not make the information less important. The article is written in an impartial manner. Dashtheman 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Dashtheman
 * The article is not up for deletion for being biased. It's considered for deletion because there is no information about it in other venues.  See WP:Note.  The fact that articles on related foodstuff exists on Wikipedia is irrelevant.  Taemyr 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. As written, the article is not encyclopedic and is about a non-notable product. It seems to be an ad, and I have deleted Think gum previously. It may be possible to write a reliably sourced and verifiably referenced article on Think Gum, but this isn't it. The one reference in the article right now has nothing to do with Think Gum, but just chewing gum in general. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:38, 3 December 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.