Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maynard midget gems

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.

[edit] Midget Gems

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Nomination withdrawn. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Midget Gems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article makes no claim of notability. Article has been tagged as needing references for the past 4 months with no worthwhile changes. Completely lacks independent verifiable sources and reads much like an advertisement. will381796 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if sourced - Midget Gems are a well-known sweet in the UK. Lots of Ghits, but sadly mostly from retailers. The article needs to be moved, if it's kept, to Midget Gems though, as it's not only Maynards who make them. I found a few non-sales sites that mention them ([1], [2], [3]) but I don't think they really count as reliable sources. A shame, really, as they're tasty little sweets!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have moved the article to Midget Gems -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article should have been tagged for lacking sources and not nominated for an AFD.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for lacking sources for the past 4 months (please read my nomination). The article itself makes no assertion of notability, which is a requirement for any article to exist. I could have speedied this due to the simple lack of notability being asserted, but figured I'd bring it here for debate. I'm in the US so I have no idea really what these things are, but if you're in the UK and are familiar, perhaps you'll be able to insert some mention of why these candies are notable. Not every product ever produced by any company is notable, so why are THESE notable? As already said, almost all Ghits are from commercial sources and those that are not commercial websites are from non-reliable sources. will381796 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, they exist and are a popular product. Speedy deletion would not have been valid as this is a product and not a person, company, band, organization, or website. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Question Has the qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia changed from the subject being notable to the subject simply existing? If so, when did this happen? will381796 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  No, but you'll notice the part where I pointed out it's a popular product. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Then this statement needs to be backed up by a citation. Without a citation, it means nothing to wikipedia. Back up the statement of "popularity" and I'll withdraw this nomination. See WP:CITE and WP:SOURCES. Just because several people on wikipedia say its popular does not make it so and if there are no sources to back up this assertion of notability, then the article should be deleted. will381796 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the re-write and the addition of several new sources that clearly state the notability of these candies, I withdraw this nomination for AfD and ask that it be closed. will381796 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (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.