Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Grahams


 * 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 List of breakfast cereals per ATD-R. Clear consensus that at this point it has not been established that the subject is sufficiently notable for its own entry. The only argument against the redirect was that the search engine will find it anyway, however, redirects are not only for searching but also for linking and it's doubtful that any user will find the list when trying to link to the cereal. Also, leaving the history in place allows interested editors to try and create a better article that might actually pass GNG.  So Why  09:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Golden Grahams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this brand; nothing for people to learn from. Wikipedia is not a directory, where every consumer product needs an article to be listed, on the basis that the product exists. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Comment See Articles for deletion/Triscuit. I'm not clear if you're unaware of the brand, as was the case with the Triscuit nominator, or if you are aware and you believe that it's not notable.  This is a major breakfast cereal, at least in the USA; it's not just any consumer product.  Breakfast cereals definitely aren't my area of focus, so I won't advocate keeping or deleting; I just want to ensure that you be aware of the basic issue.  Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have had many a bowl. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. No more comments from me.  Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On the fence at the moment. obviously this is notable in theory as a commercial product whose name and advertising many people readily recognize, but the sourcing here isn't actually helping us to say anything substantive about it to make the article much more than a WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail: of the four "references" present, three are primary sources (an "ingredients and nutritional information" page on the website of its own parent company, and two YouTube copies of its advertisements), and the only thing here that actually represents reliable source coverage about it in media is a blurb so unsubstantive that nothing else could have gotten into Wikipedia if that was its only source. Now, obviously in principle it should be possible to make the sourcing better than this — but that isn't an automatic notability freebie until someone does show that better sourcing does exist, and "I've heard of it" can and must never hand any topic an exemption from having to meet certain standards of sourcing. So I'm not a clear delete yet, as I believe it's entirely possible that better sourcing may exist somewhere — but I can't and won't say keep either, until somebody does the work to show that better sourcing does exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: as apparent business promotionalism; also Wikipedia is Not A Directory.  Quis separabit?  03:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a popular cereal in the US. But Golden Grahams don't appear to meet the WP:Golden rule. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to General Mills or List of breakfast cereals. Regardless of notability this is a plausible search term given the cereal's popularity. Essentially, do anything but delete it outright. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Am not opposed to this being in a list somewhere. I don't see the need for a redirect; as crappy as our search engine is, it will find it if somebody searches for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you're going to go down that road, you'll have to include all the rest: List of Breakfast Cereals that have their own page for less importance than Golden Grahams here on WP. It is a cereal still in circulation since 1970; and there are dozens of cereals discontinued that have pages. If WP allows Golden Nuggets, Golden Crisp, et al under just the G's ... I suggest the nominator get busy in their mission to rid the WP shelves of all the boxes they deem empty of content for this subject. Maineartists (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't whether it's still on the shelves or not; things that went defunct a thousand years ago or more still get Wikipedia articles if they can be sourced as significant — Pangaea, for example, does not still exist today and is about 300 million years older than any breakfast cereal, but it's still sourceable as noteworthy. The key issue, which no article ever gets an exemption from for any reason whatsoever, is reliable sourcing that properly supports the notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed my "keep" to mere "comment" - agree with Bearcat. So ... get busy, fellas. I see a lot articles out there on tons of stale old cereal needing a good deleting. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a search of my library database and found literally hundreds of articles on the Golden Grahams brand, including articles in AdWeek, Marketing Week, The Commercial Appeal, Marketing, Food Management, the Wall Street Journal, etc. A lot of the coverage focuses on how the cereal is marketed, but it's coverage that supports notability nonetheless. WP:BEFORE would have been good here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And these articles had "significant coverage"? Could you please cite one or two (the best maybe)? Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched my library too and here is the kind of dreck I found:
 * Golden Grahams bars go king-size. Professional Candy Buyer. 16.5 (September-October 2008): p74., the entirety of which is (minus the picture): "GENERAL MILLS INC. offers Golden Grahams Treats, king-size cereal bars exclusively available at c-stores in two varieties: chocolate marshmallow and peanut butter chocolate. The items ship in 12-ct sleeves and have a SRP of $1.19. Circle No. 203 On Reader Reply Card."
 * Kellogg Goes Crackers; Kellogg Faces Battle Over Breakfast Table as Cereal Partners Launches Golden Grahams. Hoggan, Karen. Marketing; London (May 2, 1991): 4.  (about battle between Kellogg and Cereal Partners for UK breakfast cereal market!)
 * General Mills is converting all its Big G cereals--including such brands as Trix, Golden Grahams, Lucky Charms, Rice Chex and Cheerios--to whole grain. Megan Rowe. Food Management. 39.13 (Dec. 2004): p56. The entirety of which (minus the picture) is "GENERAL MILLS is converting all its Big G cereals--including such brands as Trix, Golden Grahams, Lucky Charms, Rice Chex and Cheerios--to whole grain. Big G breakfast cereals made with whole grain will be available this winter and continuing into 2005. In taste tests, 9,000 consumers liked the new versions as much as or better than the existing cereal recipes. For more, check out www.generalmillsfoodservice.com Circle 108"
 * Research Notes: INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS da Costa, Ruth. Grocer; (Feb 14, 2004): 46. Abstract: "Kellogg's launches have included Special K, Fruit 'n' Fibre and Nutri-Grain Minis. Cereal Partners have also used the same route in the form of Cheerios, Golden Grahams and Nesquik cereal bars. Weetabix and McVitie's have also launched new products this year."
 * McTunes. Promo;  (September 2002): 11. which says: "General Mills next month becomes the first cereal brand to offer on-pack DVDs. Through a partnership with Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, Culver City, CA, more than eight million DVDs will be distributed via 20,000 retail locations. Consumers who buy two select Columbia DVDs will get one free by mail in a year-long program flagged on General Mills cereal packs. Among the Columbia titles offered on boxes of Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, Honey Nut Chex, and Cinnamon Toast Crunch are Jim Henson's The Muppets and Jackie Chan films. General Mills, Minneapolis, handles in-house."
 * lots of false hits like: Golden Graham Dobkin, Matt. Harper's Bazaar; New York 3458 (Jan 2000): 74. which is about an opera singer named Susan Graham.
 * User:BU Rob13 you can consider yourself double-dog dared to create an encyclopedia article that people could actually learn something from, and not just a string of commercial dreck that adds up to a steaming pile of "INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS" nothingness. And don't forget to Circle 108!   Or is it 203.  Oh drat I forget. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a lot of dreck. I waded through it, as one is meant to do when doing a WP:BEFORE search. For an example of what coverage I found significant:
 * 3 General Mills roster agencies pitch Golden Grahams account, Michael McCarthy and Trevor Jensen, ADWEEK Eastern Edition. 38.34 (Aug. 25, 1997): p3.
 * General Mills Moving Golden Grahams Back to DDB Needham, Trevor Jensen and Michael McCarthy, ADWEEK Midwest Edition. 38.44 (Nov. 3, 1997): p5.
 * Golden Grahams to relaunch with spoof cult campaign, Marketing Week; London23.29 (Aug 31, 2000): P. 6.
 * Kellogg Goes Crackers; Kellogg Faces Battle Over Breakfast Table as Cereal Partners Launches Golden Grahams, Hoggan, Karen. Marketing; London (May 2, 1991): 4.
 * All articles focus on the business and marketing aspects of Golden Grahams specifically, not all cereals under one company umbrella like the articles you quoted. The last one is probably the most significant. It takes up about 1.5 full pages in a newspaper and covers the brand's entry into the UK quite extensively as well as the success of the brand in the US. It could definitely be used to expand this article. Your "people could actually learn something from" standard is extremely subjective. You appear to think cereal is trivial and therefore doesn't get an article. That's just not true. Notability is determined by available sources, not the state of the article, and definitely not your opinion of what's encyclopedic (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). I may circle back to improve this article, but I'm not going to do a huge rewrite two weeks before a major exam that will determine whether or not I stay in my PhD program... ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No that is not what I think. And I expect an admin to do better than making assumptions about other people think, much less write that. In any case I am sorry that you think our mission is not to generate articles that people learn from.... and  I wonder what you think this is all for.   You can give that some thought in breaks from your PhD work.  Good luck with that work! (and I mean that.)  And you can pick up my dare and re-create this when you get time.  Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I said the criterion you're going by is subjective, not wrong. We're obviously here to compile information so people can learn. The article as it stands already compiles information people can learn from in my opinion - that there is a brand of cereal with certain characteristics and a particular history. Based on your comments, you don't think learning that is "learning", which is why I said what I did. The article could have more information, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not all articles are going to yield the answers to life's great mysteries (though world hunger ... you never know). Documenting a significant brand is worthwhile in the opinions of many. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? This page in WP has been a steaming pile of advertising shit since it was created in 2005 with the words "good stuff". I would say that is 12 years of evidence that nobody (yet) thinks it is worthwhile to document the history of this particular brand. In my own BEFORE (and yes I did a search, I write as I spit on your shoes), what I found was "INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS" nothingness.   This is going to be deleted, and if you decide to give several hours of your own precious life to culling through sources and rehearsing a history of mundane marketing strategies to re-create this, your claim of "worthwhile"-ness might have been proven true.  Of course you might find it to have been a complete waste of your time.
 * I will not be responding here further, as I have already given too much time to this. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of breakfast cereals Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 25 July 2017 (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.