Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banjo (chocolate bar)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Banjo (chocolate bar)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails notability guidelines, was unable to find reliable sources to incorporate aside from a list-style Telegraph article. The Daily Telegraph has an article about "Seven lost British sweets we pray will come back" here, but it doesn't really say much and it doesn't seem like signifigant coverage to me. The majority of results were other 'snacks we wish they'd bring back' lists from various tabloids such as  Metro (see WP:METRO) and the Daily Mirror (seen here and here). Waxworker (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Andrevan @ 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article can be improved. A google search turns up a considerable number of mentions and images on UK cultural discussion pages, in newspapers, and a change org petition. The Banjo bar was introduced by Mars post WWII but dropped in 1954 (at the end of rationing they choose to concentrate on their other double bar Twix). However, Mars re-introduced Banjo in 1976 with an extensive TV advertising campaign. The bar was the same but that the covering was now chocolate "flavoured". It was also one of the first products with a heat-sealed plastic wrapper.https://www.oldschoolsweets.com/the-beloved-banjo-bar-just-how-well-do-you-remember-it. It proved successful enough to spawn variations but by the late 1980s, changes at Mars saw it dropped. Finally WP:Notability with these things does and always will have an element of subjectivity. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS results don't necessarily indicate notability. Anyone can make a Change.org petition, and 'oldschoolsweets.com' doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Can you provide examples of coverage in newspapers? Waxworker (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As requested: https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on/food-drink-news/15-chocolate-bars-you-can-12720825 ; https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/11-childhood-chocolate-bars-you-12001719 ; https://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/14-legendary-chocolate-bars-miss-10253552 ; https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/cadbury-launches-retro-chocolate-selection-13809415; also: https://www.netmums.com/life/retro-sweets-from-our-childhood. The infuriating jingle with Kid Jensen v/o: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BylXoQYYWMg . Like I said, it's ultimately subjective - I cannot but think that WP:IDONTKNOWIT applies to this nomination. Indeed, everything you mention on your user page is utterly meaningless to me, those articles could be about asteroids, blastoids or haemorrhoids for all I know. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these sources seem usable for expanding the article - they're all just 'snacks we wish they'd bring back' lists that just give a brief description of the bar at most. The description given in Southport Visiter and Coventry Telegraph are verbatim the same. Waxworker (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked for "examples of coverage in newspapers" (which I gave), not "sources usable for expanding the article" - which were supplied in my first reply. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - coverage of varying significance found at (page 159),  (reason brand ultimately failed),, , . As product was most popular in 1950s and 1980s, would need to search British newspaper archives, which I don't have access to.
 * Oops, forgot to sign. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: (WP:ATD redirect to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated). Comments: There is an unavoidable policy issue as noted by the tag "This article does not cite any sources". While some like to argue that sourcing on an article is not important, sometimes providing some referencing at AFD or the talk page, these are not part of the article page. The policy on verifiability states: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. That is not currently possible with no sourcing to back up the content. WP:BURDEN states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The tag (January 2020) is sufficient notice of challenge and the article is still unsourced. A campaign to "Bring back the Banjo Bar is not real justification for an article and a small section in a book titled Risky strategy on the demise of the candy supports content but does not advance notability. --  Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Another WP:IDONTKNOWIT editor looking to boost their wiki-standing. The List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated does not begin to assert any relevant details of the 1970s British firm's exclusive products handled by their then entirely independent corporation, nor of their advertising campaigns. As for the incidental arguments, I'll bet this editor would not like to see some of his own personal enthusiasms undergo like objective scrutiny. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources above do show notability. The "20 discontinued chocolate bars we miss"-type articles that Plutonium27 aren't singularly about the article's subject (which isn't required) but for the most part they are all trivial mentions (though this one is borderline on the level of detail that it goes into because there is content able to be gleaned from the description). If we only had those sources I would lean towards delete. However, 78.26's sources (particularly the Risky Strategy book) do go into more detail. I also found this newspaper article from 1978 discussing the launch of the product. The article's notability is determined by the sources that exist, not the sources currently in the article, so the fact that sufficient sources do not exist in the article at this time is not a reason for deletion. The article's subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated § Discontinued product lines. Coverage exists, but upon a source review, overall coverage does not quite meet WP:SIGCOV, in my opinion. North America1000 03:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources provided above demonstrate notability. Zeddedm (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, sufficient sources have been identified above to demonstrate notability. Of course it would be desirable to get these into the article soon but that isn't the issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are good for notability, not terribly much to say about the candy, but it looks good to me. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Though it is defunct chocolate bar but enough notable. BBSTOP (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated § Discontinued product lines. This is a product therefore WP:NPRODUCT guidelines apply as well as WP:NCORP. I agree that coverage exists, but every single reference mentioned above can be classified in one of three ways. It is either a brief mention-in-passing or it is inclusion in an insignificant trivial list of "10 chocolate bars they should bring back" (of which there's no shortage of this type of vacuous article) or based entirely and completely on an announcement such as an advertising agency being awarded with the marketing of the topic chocolate bar or an article announcing the termination of its production. Note of these references come close to meeting NCORP's criteria for establishing notability of a product. The only reference that looked good until I tracked it down was "Sweets: A History of Candy" but it is a single sentence mention about is not cutting it commercially and getting withdrawn. I've checked several other books on "History of Candy" and this bar is not mentioned. In fact, this book contains the only mention in any of the ones I checked. Somebody mentioned the "risky strategy" book but somehow fails to see that the paragraph starts with "I was at Mars Confectionery as a management trainee" - so this is not "Independent Content" as the author is affiliated with the topic subject and fails WP:ORGIND. Despite the Keep !votes above, I reiterate that not a single reference mentioned in the article or at AfD meets our criteria for establishing notability. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to a reference you believe meets the criteria below for discussion.  HighKing++ 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated. For the past hour, I have done an extensive search, and it was exhausting. Listicles are not reliable sources. Here's the other things I've found. p.12: "Banjo was another British bar that was fairly popular in the 1980s, but never quite cut it commercially, and was eventually withdrawn...". Passing mention that serves only as a bearing.  p.318: "Mars' Banjo artificial chocolate and its low-fat chocolate bar Flyte...failed the taste test." This is from what is like a textbook with "Did You Know" things that read like tertiary sources.  (no page numbers): "Other well-loved chocolate of the decade, in no particular order, included.................Banjo bars..................." (there are two things named 'banjo' there). You'd be scraping the barrel to use this.  (p.159) is somewhat significant and can give some information in the Mars article.  (no page numbers): also something, and it describes the visual elements of the candy bar. The last two are the 'best' there is. In all, the chocolate bar has not been written about nearly enough to establish its notability from reliable sources. What is listed on this page and on the article are far from meeting WP:N of any form. SWinxy (talk) 21:48, 11 August 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.