Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunk-a-roos


 * 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunk-a-roos
A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. In the UK, I've never heard of it, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a well-known, but short lived, product by a highly noted company. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major brand/product. ike9898 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The above comments appear to be pasted across the numerous AfDs created from the DRV. While I endorse the DRV's actions, this should be an idependent evaluation.  Now, unlike, say, Chips Ahoy!, for which I can find dozens of mentions of in news article litterred like candy, I cannot find the same for this.  The fact that the product was so short lived means its a blip of a product that failed, and we do not need an article on every single product produced by a company. Across history there's an untold number of different products and companies that have come and gone. What's special about it? It does not appear to have the multiple reliable sources for WP:CORP's guideline for notability.  May be more appropriate for something more closely related to Betty Crocker, but that appears to be lacking too for much in the way of products in general.  There's no sources for the article really, and I can't substantiate it being a "major brand/product" because of that.  Actions by a highly noted company don't make it notable either. (Children of famous people don't get articles automatically).  The product should be able to stand on its own. Kevin_b_er 08:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a product with national distribution (at least in the US) from a major manufacturer.  I find it highly doubtful that no reliable sources about Dunk-a-roos can be found: tag as unreferenced, and hopefully someone will find one.  Mango juice talk 16:34, 11 October 2006 (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.