Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koogle

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 which does not preclude a discussion on the talk about whether it's worth covering elsewhere. Otherwise no objection to a renomination if someone thinks more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Referencing and notability issues. Andrevan@ 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found [1] on search, along with various nostalgia blogs. I think it passes WP:NPRODUCT as a reasonable CFORK of Kraft. BrigadierG (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This feels like a somewhat trivial mention. I think we need more. Andrevan@ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably doesn't even rate a redirect to Kraft Foods. The nextweb source above is a bare mention, everything else is just blogs. valereee (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It gets short entries in From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century [2] and Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food [3]. I'm seeing a <amended>Consumer Reports article</amended> in a lot of bibliographies entitled "Koogle: Does it Pass the Peanut Butter Test?", for instance it is the reference to this passing mention, but I haven't found an online copy. It was clearly well known in the 1970s and heavily advertised on TV, but I suspect there is only material for a very short page available now, unless Kraft publish some of their primary source material revealing its history and why they took it off the market. SpinningSpark 15:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These all seem like passing trivial mentions. Andrevan@ 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An entry in an encyclopaedia under a headword is not a passing mention, even if short, because the entry is about that topic. In Wikipedia, we might call such entries stubs. The Consumer Reports article I referred to is definitely not a passing mention, it's just not online. One can't write a magazine article on a product and then only mention it. SpinningSpark 06:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Informal History seems like a passing mention, though, no? It's basically an entry on a timeline, the entirety of which, 2 sentences, reads: 1975 - Kraft introduces Koogle, the first commercial flavored peanut spread, in four flavors, cinnamon, banana, chocolate, and vanilla. Consumer Reports turns thumbs down, saying, "Nutrition and taste argue against buying Koogle." Based on that, do we really need to go find this Consumer Reports review? And yes the entry in Pop Culture Encyclopedia seems to indeed be a stub, which is kind of another way of saying trivial, it's also 2 sentences, verbatim is: "Peanut Butter Koogle with the goo goo googly eyes!" A Baby Boomer lunchtime favorite in the 1970s was the peanut butter spread in a jar with swirls of chocolate, banana, cinnamon, or strawberry jelly mixed in. I guess they liked it better than Consumer's. I still think this is a trivial mention - the "encyclopedia" itself is 560 pages, I think it's more of a pop coffee table book IMHO, not World Book or Britannica. It feels like a huge stretch to me still. Andrevan@ 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My vote was weak keep. It was weak for a reason. I already said in my initial post these entries were short. There is no need for you to carry on picking over it and creating a wall of text over something I already know and have already said. SpinningSpark 07:32, 3 August 2022 (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.