Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookie Crisp


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cookie Crisp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has had no visible verifiable references from reliable sources and no claim to meet WP:GNG for over ten years. Contested PROD. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not go away after 10 years. This is a well known Breakfast cereal. Seasider91 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that the product is well known or tasty, just that it deserves an article. :)  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – If not independently notable, could be merged into List of breakfast cereals. North America1000 22:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:CITE. No references to support popularity for a stand alone article.  It's already listed in the General Mills article. Without references it's akin to accepting a page for a Youtube video just based on view count hits.  Blue   Riband►   22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Possibly selectively merge to List of breakfast cereals. I have added some sources to the article, but this may not qualify for a standalone. This will enhance and improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 23:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep With the newly added references (thanks to North America), there is enough there now to satisfy notability guidelines. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Seems like one of those subjects that is such a part of popular culture that good sources get buried. NA1000's sources scrape the surface sufficiently. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per North America1000's excellent work.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   01:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree to Keep as there are now references to support WP:N. Blue   Riband►   01:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this certainly notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article now has references and passes GNG, basically everyone who grows up in the US knows what Cookie Crisp isPrisencolin (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2016 (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.