Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Bunches of Oats


 * 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   SNOW Keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Honey Bunches of Oats

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not assert notability. Non-notable cereal. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination, even as edited, is an argument for tagging the article for notability, not for submitting it to AfD. Шизомби (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Wow, you're kidding right? You're not serious about this one, right? Umbralcorax (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You care to provide an actual argument? This is a discussion, not a vote.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject, a top five breakfast cereal, meets WP:GNG hands down. Location (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to provide a reliable source to cite notability, and not some website that doesn't count?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you must be kidding. The article cites ACNielsen. Are you going to say that ACNielsen is not a reliable source? Location (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per this. Rob T Firefly (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reason to keep.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Major breakfast cereal from major cereal manufacturer; invoke IAR if necessary just this once since cereals don't generally get a lot of media coverage. One supporting source I found: AOL Food (Slashfood) review. And here's another review and a minor story if it helps. --Cyber cobra (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - This nomination is a joke, right? It has to be a joke. WP:GNG passes this with flying colours, and if you really want to argue a lack of WP:RS, then I'll be more than happy to WP:IAR with the argument that cereals don't generally get a lot of media coverage. --Lithorien (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major breakfast cereal. Coverage in Forbes, Marketing magazine, a book on graphic design (p85). A source from 2007 stating HBOO is the third largest selling breakfast cereal. A book on children's health criticizing it and two others for the sugar and preservatives. International directory of company histories covering its introduction and marketplace success. Seems to satisfy WP:N, since several sources say it is a top selling breakfast cereal, besides substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike so many products that want Wikipedia articles, this one does come close to being a household name in the USA. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Product is on the shelf of every significant noncaptive grocery store in the US; thousands of Google News hit (some certainly spurious or trivial, but set is way to large to ignore); only issue is selection from many available sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I'm not sure if there's a notability section for cereals, but if there was, this would pass. EDIT: AND I'm quite sure Consumer Reports has reviewed this product at least once, though I cannot find an exact issue # ATM.   TheWeak   Willed   (T * G)  20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A major cereal. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (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.