Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmmmilk
- 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 merge to Shamrock Farms. MBisanz talk 00:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmmilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After source searching, this topic appears to fail WP:GNG. I added one short source to the article, but not locating others that consist of more than passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of you may protest, but-almost-solely because I am the creator, I will vote Keep. Besides, they are widely available at Arizona and other Southwestern supermarkets, so they are well known here..Antonio El Lechu Martin Diga 08:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're able to locate reliable sources that consist of significant coverage about this topic, please provide them here at the AfD discussion and ping me at my talk page. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point and see your logic. I have found many webpages that mention it but many of them are personal blogs, or the company's page, and stuff, and that is the problem. Here is something from about.com, if that counts as reliable anyways [1].Antonio beautiful Face Martin Diga 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC
- If you're able to locate reliable sources that consist of significant coverage about this topic, please provide them here at the AfD discussion and ping me at my talk page. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete per WP:MILL, which could have been written specifically for this. Orbell's soft drinks were widely available where I grew up, but at the end of the day - so what? YSSYguy (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the end of the day, the idea is that a reader who doesn't know this stuff can look it up in this encyclopaedia. Don't lose sight of the goal. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL is a personal opinion piece that has attracted much more opposition than support. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of those many cases where failing the Primary Notability Criterion doesn't mean deletion, Northamerica1000. Out Shamrock Foods Company article is clearly pitiful, and your search for sources on that will probably turn up the same potted histories in books and the book by Mervyn Kaufman that mine just did. A reader with the question "What the Heck is 'Mmmmilk'?" on xyr mind is obviously best served by a redirect going to that article if there isn't enough documented information on Mmmmilk specifically to support a standalone article. Ordinary editing tools get us from here to there just fine, as you know.
For information, my brief search for additional sources on this subject turned up just the "MmmmFlop" article in BrandWeek. So on that preliminary basis I concur on the amount of verifiable information available.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Um, this certainly exists, it is a well-known brand in the US. That said, I can't for the life of me understand why it rates a standalone article; it should redirect to Shamrock Farms if anything. §FreeRangeFrog 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the parent company article, where a brief summary of the brandline is appropriate. LadyofShalott 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.