Talk:Unicorn Frappuccino

Sources

• http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-review-2017-4
• https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-the-unicorn-frappuccino-at-starbucks-taste-like-this-flavor-changing-drink-wont-last-long-52227
• http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/19/news/companies/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino/
• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-needs-to-deliver-more-than-buzz/
• http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35178132/starbucks-calls-shifting-color-drink-a-unicorn-frappuccino
• http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/04/19/starbucks-unveils-whimsical-unicorn-drink-internet-freaks-out.html
• http://www.cosmopolitan.com/food-cocktails/a9523197/unicorn-frappuccino-review/
• http://fortune.com/2017/04/18/starbucks-unicorn-colored-frappuccino-secret-menu/
• https://www.cnet.com/news/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-taste-test-review/
• http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/18/yes-starbucks-is-launching-a-magical-unicorn-frappuccino.html
• http://www.masslive.com/food/2017/04/the_starbucks_unicorn_frappucc.html
• http://www.silive.com/news/2017/04/starbucks_unicorn_frappuccino.html
• http://www.today.com/food/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-t110477
• http://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-trots-out-unicorn-drink/
• http://www.post-gazette.com/life/drinks/2017/04/18/Starbucks-calls-shifting-color-drink-a-Unicorn-Frappuccino/stories/201704180165
• http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/04/starbucks_unicorn_frappuccino_changes_colors_flavo.html
• http://www.abc15.com/entertainment/events/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-a-color-changing-frappuccino-that-has-all-of-us-intrigued
• http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/18/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-will-anyone-over-13-drink-this/
• http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/18/starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino/
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-unicorn-frappuccino-20170418-story.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ingredients

It's made with more than that. I'd like to see it included. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Icarus of old (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated appropriate size referenced in article from 20 ounces to 24 ounces Baristapaints (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC) baristapaints

References

No reason to delete/merge article...

...just because one IP consistently seems to find it irrelevant. Icarus of old (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just one IP. I've been biding my time because I know that this subject isn't notable, but I want to give it enough time so I can show it's not notable and should either be deleted or redirected. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck "biding" that time! Icarus of old (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The nice thing about waiting is that it involves no effort! Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Um... what merge? There is no proposal. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Primefac: The title is this section is "no reason to delete/merge article", to which I am agreeing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): I am curious, why are you editing this article as part of your work with the Wiki Education Foundation? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I received an alert that it was up for proposed deletion because a student had edited it at one point in time. Upon looking at the article I can see why it was tagged - the coverage for this was pretty slim and while it deserves a mention in the parent article for frappuccinos, that's about it. It caused a bit of a media frenzy while it was out, but the majority of the coverage was of the "slow news day" variety and tended to revolve around the same thing - that the drink released, sold out quickly, and was seen as a quirky thing to take photographs of - and all of the coverage is from the same 1-3 week time span, so there's no true depth of coverage. I'm not going to revert anyone if they decide to restore it, but I don't really think it's ultimately all that notable in the grand scheme of things. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Shalor (Wiki Ed): Thanks for explaining. Shouldn't there be a tag on this talk page to show work by a student editor, or enrollment in a class project, or something? I don't know the details of your role at Wiki Ed, but just a suggestion: you might consider working via talk page discussions instead of single-handedly deciding to redirect pages, etc. Also, I must disagree, as I find this subject notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I was just following WP:BEBOLD since I didn't think that the page history should be deleted. If you want you can restore it (which you have), that would also fall within BEBOLD. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
      • 'Twas just a suggestion. Again, I don't know the specifics of your role, but I'd recommend starting talk page discussions and getting consensus for major decisions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Coffee drink?

Despite its latter name, according to Starbucks' website, there isn't a drop of coffee in its ingredients and should not have the pertaining category attached to this article. You can find that source here [1]. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This "frappuccino syrup" isn't made with any coffee. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)