Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocamine

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 redirect‎ to Cocoa solids. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chocamine

[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)

Sources don't establish notability, can't find any that do. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: [1], [2], it's got some coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published book and a mention in a directory? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though most of the sources are dead, there are actually sources outside of the article which add to the notability, as said as the other editor, but the position wasn't installed properly. Sources include RFi, Noottropicsdepot, a small brand, Prolab, another brand, and the Great Green Wall, an african organization which has its own page. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of the newly mentioned ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all ads, except for the last one. That is functionally a blog, by a non-expert, whose accreditation is that he has been "interested in supplements... for over 10 years". The wiki page for Great Green Wall is unrelated (as it's about planting trees to prevent desertification). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rollinginhisgrave, there are two editors who disagree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I didn't want to bludgeon. Just responded after it was relisted for a source analysis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can’t find any independent secondary sources out there. The ones given in the article are all product info, and both normal google and google scholar throw up nothing (except an unrelated artisanal chocolate maker of the same name). So I don’t think it passes WP:GNG, but…. As or more importantly, as far as I can tell this article is SYNTH, especially the history section, and WP:OR, and should be deleted on those grounds alone.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources brought up in this AfD are no good, the article is a mess; no reason to keep here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Cocoa solids, as one instance of these. The sources provided here are sufficient to mention it in that article. BD2412 T 01:37, 30 September 2024 (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.