Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate covered potato chips


 * 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. with the improvements made even though some areas are a little bit messy JForget  23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate covered potato chips

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable treat. The one reference in the article is actually an unwanted spam link to one company that makes this. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No references exist for this page. This item is more notable than many of the more obscure items listed on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdub34 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) — Sdub34 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 2) — Kewingk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 3) — Bodj2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 4) — Saberhr1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 5) — Gr8launch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Per nom, no references.  Triplestop  x3  01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs. Poorly written. Not notable?  (Unrelated:chocolate covered potato chips sound disgusting IMHO) The Weak Willed 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are those who are clearly ignorant to certain foods or products, therefore from their ignorance make opinions or claims, which based on their ignorance, should be discounted in this discussion. Making opinions as to notability based on your opinion is not grounds for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdub34 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of available sources is grounds for deletion, however. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. WP ha no criteria for foods wether they are appealing to a certian user or not. I was just showing my support for the article being deleted. The Weak Willed 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad article is here, because I wanted to know if they were made of actual potatoes, and I learned they were. Isn't learning the objective here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; however, the question you were asking is already answered in Potato chip. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to know about chocolate covered potato chips, that's what I typed, not just potato chip. That's like saying to find out about candy corn, one would type in just corn...no they would start with candy corn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations are going to be added. Possibly better as a sub-section of potato chip. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is even enough notability for that. Everything on google shows recipies or where to buy it. Nothing about history or anything like that The Weak Willed 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

*Delete. Not many sources referring to the target of the article. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kewingk and Bodj2 are possible sockpuppets of the user who created the article, for their first edit was this page. Just warning everyone. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey now, this just happened to be the first one listed when I visited the articles for deletion page. I had to wiki 'sockpuppet' to figure out what it was.  Can't speak for the other person, but I am simply disagreeing with the deletion arguments.  But I'm not sure this was appropriate for you to make an public accusation like this.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThat's the beauty of Wikipedia is you can find out about a lot of things you can't in an encyclopedia, and the reasons above seem to want Wikipedia to be just another 'incomplete' resource. In addition, I'm guessing many of the admins here are males, thus are not familiar with gourmet cooking clubs, where certain items like chocolate covered potato chips are a cult favorite. — Bodj2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Unsourced and bordering on spam. --DAJF (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Keep now that article is compliant. --DAJF (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep..for now. I don't see spam here, no link and no advertising going on.  Does have one source cited in text, so maybe ask author to repeat citation in reference section, and also to remove extra space before last paragraph.Saberhr1 (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepUnique food product with many fans, especially chocolate fans. Chocolate chip cookie is listed, this should be too.Gr8launch (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For this argument to be valid, you have to credibly show that the total worldwide sales of chocolate-covered potato chips is at least on the same level as those of chocolate-chip cookies in terms of weight. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- This appears to be a unique treat, has some fans, has over 12,000 Ghits, and sounds downright delicious, but it does not seem to be notable enough for its own article, unlike coffee beans, bacon, raisins, or peanuts, or even marshmallow treats. I also found about a dozen News ghits, so it can be verified with reliable sources, but some were duplicates.  I'll take a crack at rescue.  If deleted, perhaps it can be merged into Confectionary. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - I have added cites, quote, and information. I think this can be rescued.  It might need to be moved to Chocolate-covered potato chips. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep User Bearian has completely updated the article.  Please reset the discssion from this new baseline. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (boggles) Color me impressed.  I'll change my vote for that. Doniago (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep per changes made by Bearian, but given the number of outstanding Deletes, I will not withdraw my nomination. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep lots of soruces, etc. Looks good to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Changing my vote from delete to KEEP, for th article shows some notability. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep now that it has been improved. The Weak Willed 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources. Good to see the article rescued.  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 09:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The references now there meet all requirements for an article in the suggested guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I tip my hat to the article rescue squad for this one. Article is now substantially improved over how it was at the time of nomination, as such I think this AfD no longer apply's since it is essentially a different article -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that every mentioned problem has been fixed. The reference/citation problem is gone, the readability is up to par, and notability...well that's just subjective. --Scouto2 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Re-written article is a great example of why pages should be tagged for rescue before they're AfDed.  These tasty treats are clearly notable per the rewritten article.  69.253.207.9 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the chippers weren't notable before, they now seem to be. The article can use some more work, but it should survive AfD. Geoff  TC 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not encyclopedic.--camr nag 20:06, 11 August 2009 (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.