Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil dogs


 * 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   redirect to Drake's. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Devil dogs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

From a Google search, there doesn't seem to be anything substantive on the topic. All the information in this article is contained in the Drake's article, where a short blurb should belong. Unless something interesting about this can be found and added to the article, the topic doesn't seem notable. Joe S chmedley Talk 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom. This article not needed.Borock (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Drake's for now. At this time, there is simply not enough information to justify a one-sentence stub article. 03:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is still a stub, and has the potential to reach the status of articles on its sister products, Yodels, Ring Dings and others. (The only problem is that there should be a capital "D" on Dogs. That will then require a disambiguation or hatnote for the band The Devil Dogs, which now shows up as a link on the Drake's page.) — Michael J 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much of the information on Yodels and Ring Dings is unsourced, and seems difficult to source. Wouldn't this article similarly tempt WP:OR to occur? Joe S chmedley Talk 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep | Redirect . Agree with Michael J. Devil Dogs are a venerable part of the American cupboard. Love em or loathe em, they deserve a full article. The fact that the article is currently a stub is not a reason to remove it. Bella the Ball (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the readers, not reward deserving subjects. The readers are just as well informed by the info in Drake's without individual articles on each snack cake.Borock (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded that a redirect will satisfy all current cravings, and does not prejudice a good article being created at any point in the future. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect for the reasons stated above. This does have the potential to become a better article but so far there's not enough info to really warrant its own article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Redirect unless somebody steps up to improve the article now, as opposed to in the hypothetical future. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note If the decision is to redirect, please see my comment above about capitalization. There should also be a redirect on both Devil d ogs and Devil D ogs.
 * 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.