Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeky Vimto

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky Vimto

[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)

No evidence of any notability or even that it exists. Probably a hoax or neologism: Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "neologism"? What evidence do you have that it's "probably a hoax"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my searches yielded nothing except recursive mentions back to Wikipedia. Even the canned drink mentioned in the text makes no reference to the name of the article. I suspect that this is just someone's pet name for this or a similar drink. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's "probably a hoax or neologism" because you can't find any original sources other than this Wikipedia article? Could you show me how, for example, this source has "recursive mentions back to Wikipedia"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the Google Books search linked above shows that this is not a hoax or neologism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two references in books which are sufficient for WP:GNG. I've added those to the article. There are additional book references to be found in Google book searches, but as I found most of them to be displayed only as "snippets," I've not added them as I haven't had a chance to retrieve the actual print books to review the references mentioned in the snippets. Still and all, there's enough there for general notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Geoff. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2019 (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.