Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinnamon Challenge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sorry folks, but I can't see any other outcome to this discussion. Sources were found, but there is disagreement on their value. Several of the arguments made by both "keep" and "delete" commenters are invalid as far as a deletion discussion. Perhaps the discussion of merging this to the main article on cinnamon should continue at the appropriate talk page... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Challenge

[edit]
Cinnamon Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No doubt the eating of cinnamon for a bet or a sport exists, but there is no such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge." Drmies (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is this based upon a search for sources, or just an opinion that because as a popular culture phenomenon, it's too trivial, and thus, "non-notable"? See below for several reliable sources that have been added to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is currently sourced at this time. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, not whether or not sources are present in articles. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be deleted for a lack of references in articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep - There is such thing as the "Cinnamon Challenge"; it is entirely existential, and is covered in reliable sources. Here's one (a newsblog article) I added to the article:
  • Kogod, Sarah (November 17, 2011). "Nick & JaVale's Cinnamon Challenge". NBC Washington, Channel 4 news. Retrieved January 7, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be people trying to outdo each other in all kinds of ways. Just now, on Saturday Night Live, "Charles Barkley" and "Shaq" were challenged: who can stand the longest on one leg. I like to challenge people in a game called "who knows more people called Mike Davis." So? For "speedy keep" you have to argue other things, like I'm a banned editor or the nomination was vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More sources added to the article, including coverage on ABC National news:
  • [Interjection by nominator:] I hope visitors to this AfD will click on this link to see what in some circles counts as reliable sources offering significant discussion. I've removed this from the article--to anyone who watches it it should be clear why. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources can also be used for verification purposes. ABC News is typically considered a news source of integrity, despite the "popular culture" theme of the piece. Also, importantly, please note that I referred to this source simply as "more sources" within the context of my statement. The statement above appears to be about what I consider "counting" as a reliable source (since I added the link), and is out of context in this case, because I didn't refer to this particular source as such. Additionally, primary and tertiary sources can be used for verification purposes, and passing mentions in a national newscast (even pop-culture news) from news sources with a history of editorial integrity can be used to verify information in articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Interjection by nominator:] This is a couple of photos of a guy spooning some cinnamon. It takes place at a local radiostation, and the caption is this, "For this week’s 'Dancing With the Stunts' in-studio challenge, producer Josh took on the notoriously difficult 'cinnamon challenge.'" This was in the reference section, whence I removed it since it makes a mockery of the very concept of "reference." Drmies (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speedy keep"? You've demonstrated that it does exist, but the sources are poor quality trivial coverage, not the significant discussion in third-party sources we need to show notability. LadyofShalott 10:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the wording of the nomination, speedy keep criterion applies. The nominator stated that the term doesn't exist, when it actually does. This doesn't advance an argument for deletion, and because the topic and name actually exist, the opinion stated by the nominator has been nullified. Consider trying a search for reliable sources to add to the article, to improve the article, and hence, the Wikipedia project! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, yes, perhaps that would have applied if his had been the only opinion when you posted your information, or if other people were advocating deletion based on non-existence. However, other editors have in good faith advocated deletion based upon non-notability, and therefore a speedy keep is not possible, despite the flaw to the original argument. LadyofShalott 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both. There is coverage, and even in what easily passes as reliable sources, but it's not the kind of significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. Even the Washington Post blog entry is a space filler.--RadioFan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with RadioFan. The Washington Post piece is the only one that even approaches what we would need, and it is not sufficient. (The SI piece has it as a brief entry in a list.) There just is not the kind of in depth discussion in reliable sources we need to meed the WP:GNG. LadyofShalott 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More coverage in major reliable sources I added to the article from The Washington Post; an entire newsblog article about the Cinnamon Challenge. I also added coverage from a newsblog in Sports Illustrated. I can't help but wonder if some of the !votes to delete are based upon opinion that as a cultural phenomenon, the topic itself is too trivial and thus the article should be deleted, despite the fact that it's been covered in many reliable sources. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which address the topic in detail, and in major news sources to boot. Furthermore, newsblogs that are under editorial control by their publishers are absolutely valid as reliable sources. More reliable sources added:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a rather subjective interpretation of topic notability. If all articles were to be gauged under these types of arguments, then any article could hypothetically be removed from Wikipedia based upon personal opinion of the topic, rather than whether or not a topic's covered in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not Capybara. Or Coffee. Or Hurricane Andrew. Or Sugar Bowl. Etc. In your view, I think, any trivial mention constitutes "coverage" and just about anything counts as a reliable source, including brochures run off with a mimeograph in five-fold and deposited in the local library. Sure, there are matters of interpretation here, but to propose that only the "other side" is guilty of "rather subjective interpretations" is disingenuous. After all, you considered a series of photos of a radio jock eating some cinnamon "coverage." Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there are still concerns with the depth of coverage here and usefullness of the article doesn't really establish notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cinnamon_Challenge&oldid=1099457816"