Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yocrunch


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus.  Rob e  rt  23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yocrunch
Non-notable, uninteresting product MacRusgail 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless if we plan to list every product ever, this should go Ashibaka (tock) 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No please: do not list every product ever :-) Gtabary 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless and until we come up with a good set of standards to determine brand notability. Clearly, this is different from the Mach 3, but how? Meelar (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have such a set of notability criteria for products. See WP:CORP.  Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would have suggested merge, but there isn't enough material really decide where to merge it, nor is there any real loss in tossing it. --Gmaxwell 02:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Anyone who wants to keep lousy articles like this should spend some time to improve them instead, so they are less likely to end up on AFD. Quale 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ... which is exactly what I've just done. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * People independent of the company have written about the product, its marketing, its packaging, its manufacturing process, and even about inventive ways to incorporate it into a kosher diet. (See the references that I've added to the article.)  The WP:CORP criteria for products are satisfied.  Keep.  Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mild keep for the rewritten articel. Seems mildly notable. I wouldn't be devastated if this were deleted, however. DES (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good on Uncle G. Keep with the additions. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rewritten version establishes notability. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable product. I'm not convinced that it's an original invention either. Bwithh 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. MCB 06:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable yoghurt-cruft. Why would the author choose to write about the product over the company, which would likely pass the notability test?  Dottore So 11:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article about the company would be fine, but I'd guess it's more likely that someone would come to Wikipedia looking for information about this product than about the company. JamesMLane 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete brand with local/regional importance only, i.e. not even national, obviously not global. No unique features. Would, maybe, fit in in a list of the company's products, no need for an article. Nabla 18:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, brand with importance, if only local/regional. Kappa 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 *  Delete and redirect/move to company page, which would solve the unlikely problem of a Wikipedia search for Yocrunch. Nothing links to this page.  I don't see anything notable; Wikipedia doesn't cover the several more successful imitators of the product, so there's no call to identify the original one (even assuming that this is original).  Precedent: Trix Yogurt and Danimals currently redirect to the company page. FRCP11 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "delete and move" is a self-contradictory choice. Uncle G 13:56, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.