- 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 Ovaltine#History. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- PDQ Chocolate ( | 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)
One paragraph article with only 3 sources, does not pass WP:GNG, also failed PROD PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete can't find sources other than in recipe books. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless stub with adequate references already in article.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Source Assessment Table proves otherwise.:
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gone But Not Forgotten Groceries |  Pass
|
 No Evidence of Reliability(User Generated)
|
40% of the page mentions the subject(131 out of 325 words)
|
✘ No |
| In the 70's | Pass
|
No(User Generated)
|
One very short paragraph
|
✘ No |
| Ancestry Newspapers | Pass
|
~ Official Newspaper With Paid Subscription | Can't Access Without Paying
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- Merge to the Ovaltine article, nothing notable about this otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Ovaltine It was a popular product at the time (it did share the name of a popular game show of the time), but was de facto replaced by Ovaltine's 'rich chocolate' version over time based on brand recognition. Nate • ( chatter) 00:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge is the right ATD for now. Undoubtedly this would pass GNG given enough crawling through dead tree papers, but it's monotonous work sifting through advertisements to find the few actual reviews of the product, so I'll hope we one day have better tools for that. — siro χ o 06:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge Given only electronic sources for an item that disappeared more than twenty years before the Internet, notability has been shown. I agree with siro, above, that paper research would yield dividends, but since the article is so short, I see no problem with a merger, and it would not unduly distort the Ovaltine article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into Ovaltine#History. We should merge mostly the sources. Whether notable or not, the text is too short for a SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Ovaltine per above. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge given that PDQ Chocolate was a product line manufactured by Ovaltine, merging the PDQ Chocolate page into the Ovaltine main page would be a good decision. Emma so Bergst222 ( talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Ovaltine#History. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- PDQ Chocolate ( | 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)
One paragraph article with only 3 sources, does not pass WP:GNG, also failed PROD PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete can't find sources other than in recipe books. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless stub with adequate references already in article.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Source Assessment Table proves otherwise.:
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gone But Not Forgotten Groceries | Pass
|
No Evidence of Reliability(User Generated)
|
40% of the page mentions the subject(131 out of 325 words)
|
✘ No |
| In the 70's | Pass
|
No(User Generated)
|
One very short paragraph
|
✘ No |
| Ancestry Newspapers | Pass
|
~ Official Newspaper With Paid Subscription | Can't Access Without Paying
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- Merge to the Ovaltine article, nothing notable about this otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Ovaltine It was a popular product at the time (it did share the name of a popular game show of the time), but was de facto replaced by Ovaltine's 'rich chocolate' version over time based on brand recognition. Nate • ( chatter) 00:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge is the right ATD for now. Undoubtedly this would pass GNG given enough crawling through dead tree papers, but it's monotonous work sifting through advertisements to find the few actual reviews of the product, so I'll hope we one day have better tools for that. — siro χ o 06:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge Given only electronic sources for an item that disappeared more than twenty years before the Internet, notability has been shown. I agree with siro, above, that paper research would yield dividends, but since the article is so short, I see no problem with a merger, and it would not unduly distort the Ovaltine article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into Ovaltine#History. We should merge mostly the sources. Whether notable or not, the text is too short for a SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Ovaltine per above. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge given that PDQ Chocolate was a product line manufactured by Ovaltine, merging the PDQ Chocolate page into the Ovaltine main page would be a good decision. Emma so Bergst222 ( talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.