Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirouline (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pirouline
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a non notable brand of biscuits. The sources are PRIMARY. There are no 3rd party sources that indicate why it is notable. Lipsabove33 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable; see, for instance, this search. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:CORP, as no independent, reliable sources have been found to establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of the problem is that the majority of the Gnews sources are pay-for-access. I did find (and added to the article) a TV news website that posted its story on the Madison, Mississippi bakery where these are made as founded by the scion of a Belgian baking consortium. Doesn't getting featured on "Unwrapped" make a food notable? ;-) Geoff  Who, me?  21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if the food wears as much make-up as the host does. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think they're notable. My family buys that brand frequently. I think it's available at Target and Wal-Mart. I searched for a while and couldn't find much news coverage, but I'm sure it's out there if you search hard enough. I'm willing to bet you could find some stuff on them from Belgian sources, but I don't know anything about Belgian news. See http://pirouline.com/AboutUs.aspx for ideas.--Jp07 (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve Clearly meets general notability guideline. See long list of possible sources to comb through. Steven Walling  20:54, 2 July 2011 (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.