Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paynes Poppets


 * 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. It appears the article has undergone some improvements since this AFD was started, and two of the four sources cited do provide sufficient coverage, giving more weight to the 'keep' arguments here. Even if I closed this as "no consensus" the status quo (the article continuing to exist) would remain. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Paynes Poppets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have been questioning whether this deserved a Wikipedia article for ages - not since reading the article, since buying the product in my local Farmfoods. What clinched checking for me was seeing it linked from Toffifee, which is now being advertised in the UK. At best this is of questionable factual accuracy (their pisspoor excuse of a website refutes the claims that this they are now known as Toffifee and that their offices are in Croydon), at worst this is of very questionable notability. If this ends in delete, I will also be AfDing Toffifee. Laun chba  ller  22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional and without any sources since a long time. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * keep Pre-war confectionery that has lasted for 75 years. If we have articles on confectionery, this is the sort of product we should be covering. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - There are a lot of tantilising passing mentions in Gbooks as can be seen here. Some coverage in The Independent, DesignWeek, JTdale   Talk 10:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Passing mentions"? I've read this somewhere... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those refs now added to the article are substantial, reliable and third party - pretty much ending this afd as a meaningful discussion. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of affection for these because they were around when I was a kid. They are still around now! This afd looks a bit like trying to delete mars bars or snickers... Szzuk (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel the added sources barely reach GNG, and, despite being the Daily Mail, provides some additional margin. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is nonsense; GNG is "has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources". The Daily Mail does not provide additional margin.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the Daily Mail is a reliable source, will you be taking Zinoviev letter to AfD as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Deelte Even with the added sources, the referencing is trivial and does  not show show notability. Rathe the fact that theeare the things talked about in connection with the firm offers a fairly good prove of non-notabillity.   DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep The article on Fox's Confectionery doesn't seem to cover the subject of Paynes Poppets in any detail beyond having it listed in the Products section and would benefit from the merger. The alternative is to either keep the article as is, or to redirect the page—with its history intact—to Fox's Confectionery. I strongly oppose deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would oppose merging to Fox's. Notability for these would seem founded on their longevity: yet they've only been part of Fox's for the last decade. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs improvement but it has references, and has been around over 70 years (and I remember them from 30 years ago). I'm surprised the proposer picked on these first, rather than on Toffifee which is a much weaker article (less information, less history, younger product). KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much worse product, as well, but I don't like nuts and WP:I don't like it is not a reason for deletion. I was feeling quite irritated at the time that I had spent years pronouncing it Toffifay (from Family Guy: The Movie) and apparently it is pronounced Toffifee, and decided that my judgment was too clouded at the time to make a level-headed decision. I did say I was only going to AfD Toffifee if this was deleted but if you are suggesting that Toffifee is more likely to end up in delete, are you suggesting that I AfD regardless of the outcome of this?-- Laun  chba  ller  19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I was "suggesting that".. you .. "AfD regardless of the outcome of this", but I would say it is unrelated and a much stronger case. The only thing that give me pause is it has a surprising number of edits from such a non article! I certianly would not have voted keep on Toffifee, and probably would vote 'Weak delete' (not that I poke around AfD as much as I probably should) - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Even if it results in a keep, the AfD will almost certainly result in cleanup. The encyclopedia benefits either way.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:38, 11 November 2014 (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.