Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar Puffs


 * 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   Snowball close, no one, not even the nominator, has put forth a valid deletion reason, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Puffs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

text keeps getting added to with material that is not true and offensive language is also being used Brayleino1 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Vandalism not a reason for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Invalid deletion reason Admrboltz (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously notable product, vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No valid argument given for deletion.--Michig (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above.  --Dynaflow   babble  13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, suggest WP:SNOW close - nominator has not presented a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep': Not a valid reason to delete. Metty 14:38, 14 September 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.