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 merge to Mountain Dew. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dewmocracy[edit]

Dewmocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I cannot see how this campaign by way of interactive web-game from PepsiCo is so notable as to merit its own article, so I wanted to discuss if it should be deleted here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some basic facts into Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion, as with other Mountain Dew marketing; no notability for this particular advertising campaign has been established. -- Mithent (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mithent Jonathan^T•@•C 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Mithent. This is an easy one. Xihr (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to ask, if this campaign is not notable, why should we crowd the Mountain Dew article with this type of junk? Surely you must be aware that there are multiple marketing departments within PepsiCo thinking up this crap day in and day out, that doesn't mean we need to document every example of it. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "merge some basic facts", not the whole article - Mountain Dew#Marketing and promotion has a couple of lines about other promotions. Something along the lines of "In November 2007, the interactive game Dewmocracy was launched, in which users vote to determine the can graphics, colour and flavour of a new Mountain Dew product to launch in 2008" was what I was thinking. It's of some limited interest in the context of Mountain Dew because this upcoming product is voted for by users, but it's not independently notable and thus not worth an article. However, I don't feel especially strongly about it; I wouldn't mind if the article was just deleted. -- Mithent 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Xihr 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; non-notable unless something actually comes of it, at which point the information on Dewmocracy can be merged into a section on the new flavor. --Golbez 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing of substance to merge. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I didn't think I would find myself defending this article's retention ... there are a number of independent media stories on this campaign, which I will add as references shortly. It is not uncommon for marketing campaigns to be significant if they involve a major public figure (as this one does) or significantly influence the trajectory of a product (as this one might ... or might not [thinking of the New Coke debacle]). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it a notable ad campaign? did it innovate? is it something different? No, no, no. Delete--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (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.