Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Australian soft drink)

Solo (Australian soft drink)

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. Several "references" on the page; blogs and an online store, not reliable sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Schweppes Australia, which is in need of writing. Iconic drink from an iconic company, we should cover it, although not in a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge). Pladask (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge definitely a part of Australian drinking culture. notable but as per above, suggest schweppes article. its not going to go on and become anything more than an iconic australian drink. Alvin M. (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Norwegian soft drink)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged and redirected both Passiona and Solo (Australian soft drink) to Schweppes Australia. There are probably more soft drinks. These drinks are popular, but not quite at the level of Coca-Cola, and in the absence of significant secondary source coverage, they are probably best merged together. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - when Afd's are in progress there is a specific request to not do as such - your merge is not correct process - please understand that Afd discussion and the note above the article say not to do so until the Afd is finished. Satu Suro 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a view, but not universal or absolute. Wikipedia:AfD_and_mergers#Merging_during_deletion_discussions does not say what you assert. I also consider Wikipedia:Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service and User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves, and I do not commit myself to return to this nominated page after its eventual close. In this case, the counter proposal to the nom was to merge to a page that was then a redirect. This is too unclear to leave as is for subsequent AfD participants or even the closer. In a minimum of edits, I demonstrated a minimum effort at the merge. I don't see anything controversial in this. In fact, even after the revert by The-pope, and your comments, this AfD remains applicable to WP:SK#1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is only an essay, not policy. The text in the AFD notice clearly states that the article must not be blanked. Redirecting it to another article is blanking, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Schweppes - after the afd has been completed - Satu Suro 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current Schweppes Australia article is insufficient and overly concentrates (WP:UNDUE) on the two brands, rather than on the company and it's whole history - and the fact that it doesn't mention Schweppervescence or lemonade or mixers means that it needs a lot of work. Whilst this may sound like a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, but Solo is a long standing iconic soft drink brand in Australia, but suffers from using a "normal word" so Google searches are difficult to focus on the actual brand, not just the word solo. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a notable brand in Australia, though obviously the article could use some work.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there as far as I can tell. For example, here's a useful one [1]. Even in 1979 it was already acknowledged that Solo received substantial coverage in the media. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]