Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milaf Cola

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!} 23:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milaf Cola (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)

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. This is a brazen advertisement for a 1 week-old (!) cola brand produced by the Saudi government. The sources are all garbage and they all read like sponsored content. Thenightaway (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much PROMO. Reads like PR items, none of which are in RS. Could be a one liner in the Public Investment Fund article, perhaps... Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also noting [1] and [2] Drew Stanley (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'd agree it's promo except for...being well-sourced and meeting GNG. A new and, more importantly, an apparently unique and sugar-free cola. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 7 out of 9 sources are literally the exact same content plastered across seven different websites (the two remaining sources are government propaganda outlets), which is a strong indicator that this is sponsored content (not to mention that the stories are written like press releases). It's almost as if the creator of this article is intentionally trying to deceive us that it's notable. Thenightaway (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But wouldn't the newspapers be reputable sources? The Times of India, etc. In any case, this does seem a unique drink and I'd be tempted to take a sip (have had only one soft drink since 1988, used to inhale them like, ah and duh, water). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India has a track record of undisclosed paid stories and even stories written by AI. This[3] is not what a newspaper article looks like. It is almost surely sponsored content. Thenightaway (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But if it is accurate that it is the world's first date-based cola that seems notable (and may even pass the RFK Jr. test in the States). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not take the Saudi government's word on the novelty of their own product. Thenightaway (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG is passable., This is probably because it is a new product that was launched recently, so it feels like a promotion. It is the first cola drink in the world to be produced from the Date fruit, and it has a notability, it is a government-made product, and many sources prove this. Spworld2 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being "the first [anything]" is not a notability criterion, neither is being "government-made". Whether or not"it has notability" is what this discussion is here to determine. But being newly-launched, the odds for that are not great. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are just product launch publicity / churnalism, and confer no notability of any flavour. Purely promotional. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read the articles, or as much as I can with the pop-up ads, and each uses different language, are varied in what they report and emphasize, and many come from reputable newspapers and magazines. Product publicity based on promotion of a new product is not unusual - that's how much of the news industry works, reporters finding out about something from press releases. Cola's were invented in 1886, and that the first to use date extracts has emerged 138 years later has attracted press doesn't seem unusual but normal coverage of a new concept. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to push back on your media literacy. These are not reputable newspapers and magazines, and the content of the "stories" is embarrassing and brazenly promotional. There's also absolutely nothing to indicate that this product is novel. It defies common sense that nobody in the world has included a popular fruit in a soda drink. The first result that pops up when you google date cola is a pre-existing product[4]. The bare minimum research of just googling "date cola" was apparently beyond these "reputable newspapers and magazines". Thenightaway (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You claim that The Economic Times, The Times of India, The Siasat Daily, Khaleej Times, and Yahoo News are not reputable newspapers and news sites. Does Wikipedia, which has articles on each one, share your view? Does everyone who cites information from these newspapers and sites lack media literacy? This soda is claimed to be the first to use dates as its primary ingredient and flavoring. Since Wikipedia doesn't do journalism, but reports on what sources say, has this been refuted by articles on the cola that you link to, which, yes, includes dates as a major ingredient, which may require a change in the article's language if a source is found. Regardless of the existence of this other cola, the accumulated coverage for Milaf Cola meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources that is intellectually independent of its subject. The fact that the various media sources are reproducing the same text is clear evidence that they are reproducing a press release, and their coverage is therefore not intellectually independent. These newspapers - at least those I am familiar with - are often usable as Wikipedia sources, but not always. See for instance our RSP entry about the Times of India, and the linked discussions, which show that TOI sometimes publishes sponsored content, without necessarily flagging it as such. Those sources need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and there is clear evidence in this case that they are not appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 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.