- 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
OpenCola (drink)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- OpenCola (drink) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable source that indicate notability. I have attempted to look for these source, but haven't found anything other than short how-to guides. -- Darth Mike (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 01:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep has a cult following in the open source community. 2A01:4C8:B:1E74:BF4F:C29D:A6F9:2CA2 ( talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. You need more than a cult following for an article on Wikipedia. You need in-depth, significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that indicate notability.-- Darth Mike (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Google books search upon "OpenCola" (you have to delete the "(drink)" yields hits including Utne Reader snippet which I don't have full access to, but cites other coverage and seems substantial:
The Utne Reader - Volumes 109-113 - Page 14 https://books.google.com/books?id=W4D-etJzHVMC
2002 - Snippet view - More editions Meet OpenCola. Okay, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but the new soft drink is different from others in one key respect: It's the world's first “opensource” consumer product, writes Graham Lawton in the British magazine New Scientist ...
- Seems like strong assertion of significance. --
Doncram (
talk)
03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. That article is just a passing mention in a larger discussion about copyrights. Not in-depth coverage about OpenCola. And that seems to be the trend from anything I could find. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
WeakKeep. I have added two references from the MIT Technology Review (2001) and Wired (2013) on OpenCola. It is probably a borderline case, but the Wired article describing Napster as an OpenCola moment implies that the legacy of the product has made a notable impression on the open-source sector, and therefore worthy of preservation. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Added another from Digital Journal (2007). Moving to a full Keep. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed, I think those three sources establish notability. I don't know why I couldn't find them! I withdraw my nomination. -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (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.
- 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
OpenCola (drink)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- OpenCola (drink) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable source that indicate notability. I have attempted to look for these source, but haven't found anything other than short how-to guides. -- Darth Mike (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 01:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep has a cult following in the open source community. 2A01:4C8:B:1E74:BF4F:C29D:A6F9:2CA2 ( talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. You need more than a cult following for an article on Wikipedia. You need in-depth, significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that indicate notability.-- Darth Mike (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Google books search upon "OpenCola" (you have to delete the "(drink)" yields hits including Utne Reader snippet which I don't have full access to, but cites other coverage and seems substantial:
The Utne Reader - Volumes 109-113 - Page 14 https://books.google.com/books?id=W4D-etJzHVMC
2002 - Snippet view - More editions Meet OpenCola. Okay, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but the new soft drink is different from others in one key respect: It's the world's first “opensource” consumer product, writes Graham Lawton in the British magazine New Scientist ...
- Seems like strong assertion of significance. --
Doncram (
talk)
03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. That article is just a passing mention in a larger discussion about copyrights. Not in-depth coverage about OpenCola. And that seems to be the trend from anything I could find. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
WeakKeep. I have added two references from the MIT Technology Review (2001) and Wired (2013) on OpenCola. It is probably a borderline case, but the Wired article describing Napster as an OpenCola moment implies that the legacy of the product has made a notable impression on the open-source sector, and therefore worthy of preservation. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Added another from Digital Journal (2007). Moving to a full Keep. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed, I think those three sources establish notability. I don't know why I couldn't find them! I withdraw my nomination. -- Darth Mike (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (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.