Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (food)


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vector (food)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced article that would fail notability guidelines and which would probably be better off being part of a section of List of Kellogg's products. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find reliable sources despite running variations of the name through the various gSearches. The best I could do was a few passing mentions and not enough to amount to significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. The cereal brand is already listed in Kellogg%27s, which I agree with the nominator to be all that is warranted. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 16:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found a number of references in the Toronto Star via ProQuest, but since I do not have access to the full articles I cannot determine if these are incidental mentions or potential refs for this article. Can someone who has access investigate this? (Examples include this (probably marketing fluff), this, and this.) Mind  matrix  18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks sources to establish standalone notability; the listing in the Kellogg's article is sufficient to provide encyclopedic coverage. One has to wonder, though, how an article about another Kellogg product, Krave (cereal), running to about four or five paragraphs (depending how you visualize them), remains in good standing with only a single reference, which supports, maybe, a single fact in the article. I'll admit to a Deletionist bias; this article offers support for that philosophy. DonFB (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:56, 25 March 2017 (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.