Template:Did you know nominations/Rocket Fizz

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rocket Fizz

(

)

... that Rocket Fizz, a candy company and franchise chain, produces and markets a ranch dressing-flavored soft drink?

Reviewed: DeCSS haiku

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self nominated at 10:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Sourced to a video and a blog, but its hard to dispute that the product is real... Can you please add additional details or the news release from Rocket Fizz? I.e. this From the sounds of it... Rocket Fizz is well-aware of its "effects", which makes for a probably more interesting DYK! And if that's not enough, Rocket Fizz announced "Ranch Dressing Flavored Soda Could Be The Worst Thing On The Planet!" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of the sources are from reliable news media sources, and the blog is a reliable WP:NEWSBLOG, thus qualifying to accurately verify information in the article and for the hook. Secondary sources such as these are typically preferred compared to primary sources such as press releases. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over nothing, and I do disagree, but it does meet the requirements for a DYK - but you missed what seems to be a more interesting aspect and hook. Your choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:ChrisGualtieri: Not arguing, just following the rules. Therein it states, "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source..." At WP:RS, it states in section WP:WPNOTRS, "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred" and "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue with you over this. I much prefer the existence and documentation of a product or a service where the sourcing is best. I recently had to work on a fictional creature and even newspapers unknowingly and later purposely ran stories as if it were real. I feel you are missing the better hook and the origin of the drink. It took less than a minute to dig up the information and I should not spend much more than that explaining why its perfectly acceptable and helpful. If you want this to run, it meets, but you did less than I expected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to propose a new hook, just add an actual formatted ALT1. It would be much easier for you to write it, than it would be for me to write one based upon your own expectations relative to your own ideas. It is unreasonable to request and expect other editors to write ALTs based upon your own "expectations". You need to do it yourself in this forum. Thank you in advance for considering this viewpoint. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair assessment - but I'm new to DYK so forgive me. We need not quibble over it. I think it is fair to pass it, it meets the standards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

New enough and long enough. Refs and cites check out (don't think I'd like to drink one). GTG Jack1956 (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)