Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toad Sweat

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Sweat

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual item appears to lack notability, the article subject and author have a self declared COI and the article would require significant reworking to remove the peacock nature and significant souring requirements to bring in to line with the expected standard if is does meet notability Amortias (T)(C) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Amortias (T)(C) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some local coverage found [1], but that's not enough. Article now is largely unsourced and some primary/un-RS used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The seven sources are indeed not helpful. The 2002 article in the Herald-Sun of Durham, NC, isn't online; I can't access the archive link to ToadSweat.com (obviously not a secondary source in any case); the "Propeller Hub" is a generic site that doesn't show anything about Toad Sweat; the Lancashire Tourism site doesn't mention Toad Sweat, though, note, it does mention Peppered Palette dessert hot sauces, a "hobby company"? which produces Toad Sweat, and which won the Taste of Lancashire Producer Awards category. The two sources listed from the /gff.co.uk/directory are quite useless — mere listings, indeed. To sum up: two of the sources are sort of helpful, though not exactly ample: Lancashire Tourism and the Good Morning America video from ABC News, from 1997 (sic) and available on YouTube only. And maybe the print-only Herald-sun article was perfectly fine, but, well, pretty old in any case. The other four are seriously nothings. Bishonen | tålk 23:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This from Lancashire Post appears independent, but it's of course not enough for WP:GNG. Passing mentions:[2][3]. Also found some mentions on ProQuest, including Washington Post. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm sorry to break the bad news, but the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, and Good Morning America and other morning shows work with PR advisors to get featured on air. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Future significant, in depth media coverage in regional or national corporate media can make it notable, but at this point, this is lacking. Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly promotional slop written by the same author as Dessert Hot Sauce, which is also tagged for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Looks like advertisement. No SIGCOV . Gauravs 51 (talk)
Delete as promotional. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (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.