Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Bar


 * 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 Quaker Oats Company. TigerShark (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Harvest Bar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Deprodded with the rationale that it is "pretty notable in the UK", I was unable to find any reliable sources showing this. Fails notability guidelines; sole source on the article is a WP:USERGENERATED review, see archive link here. Waxworker (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm finding no sources at all. This seems to be simply a brand name of a granola bar. valereee (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is indeed a "brand name of a granola bar". But then, a Mars bar is just a brand name of a chocolate bar! Certainly pretty notable in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to relevant section of Quaker Oats Company article. Per WP:NPRODUCT. Or failing that, delete. Unlike the similar but separate AfD on a related topic, a WP:BEFORE exercise here doesn't return many/any sources of which the subject is a primary topic. All I can find are sources like this where the subject is mentioned alongside other competing products. Or this, where the product seems to be mentioned, but in the context of something else. The existing "reference" in the article is otherwise about as unreliable as it gets. Not seeing justification for a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect. Not able to find relevant coverage, though as an unrelated aside (I am unable to verify this from actual reliable sources rather than SPS, and it would have little bearing on notability regardless if not part of significant coverage) the brand seems to have been licenced and subsequently discontinued at some point when the licensee was sold. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:57, 18 July 2022 (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.