- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sunny Boy Cereal
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sunny Boy Cereal ( | 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)
Completely unreferenced article about a cereal brand, not making any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that it exists, which isn't enough in and of itself, and otherwise it's just a corporate history timeline -- and apart from the company's own self-published website about itself in the external links, there's no independent reliable source coverage about it to establish passage of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Abject cruft. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I added eight references from the last 90 years. Of significance are the 2003 Western Producer article and the 2007 Edmonton Journal. The 1970 Edmonton Journal piece is very extensive - and though I think it's GNG, it might count as opinion. Nfitz ( talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Sources added by Nfitz have greatly improved the article. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep seems to meet GNG, sources are good. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The article has been improved since the nomination. It meets the [WP:GNG]]. It has been also mentioned in many books 1, 2, 3. Although just passing mentions but that still shows it's significance. Fifthapril ( talk) 04:41, 17 October 2022 (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sunny Boy Cereal
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sunny Boy Cereal ( | 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)
Completely unreferenced article about a cereal brand, not making any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that it exists, which isn't enough in and of itself, and otherwise it's just a corporate history timeline -- and apart from the company's own self-published website about itself in the external links, there's no independent reliable source coverage about it to establish passage of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Abject cruft. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I added eight references from the last 90 years. Of significance are the 2003 Western Producer article and the 2007 Edmonton Journal. The 1970 Edmonton Journal piece is very extensive - and though I think it's GNG, it might count as opinion. Nfitz ( talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Sources added by Nfitz have greatly improved the article. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep seems to meet GNG, sources are good. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The article has been improved since the nomination. It meets the [WP:GNG]]. It has been also mentioned in many books 1, 2, 3. Although just passing mentions but that still shows it's significance. Fifthapril ( talk) 04:41, 17 October 2022 (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.