Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Food and drink. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Food and drink|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Food and drink. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink/archive

watch

Food and drink

Dabby-Doughs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Cinnamon Roll because it is just another variation in the same priblnciple as per WP:Merge and WP:Overlap. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete I suppose the cinnamon roll article can mention variations in shape or name, but I'm not sure what exactly should be merged. This term has almost no search results, seems archaic and rarely used. Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Croline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was first questioned in the talk page back in 2011, and has since been marked as under sourced. The only reference is a self published book on google and a check on the net I can only find this which is a copy of Wikipedia. Recipes normally would have plenty of sources online so I suspect this is either a hoax, a self created dish by the self published writer or a miss spelling of an actual dish. Either way I don't think it meets our notability guidelines or WP:V. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. jolielover♥talk 07:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Pâte brisée

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Shortcrust pastry because Pâte brisée is a variation of this shortcrust, in French. The sweet version, Pâte sablée, doesn't have a separate article and along with Pate brisee has a section on the shortcrust page. As per WP:Merge and WP:Overlap. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and France. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sam's Choice

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to List of Walmart brands because it fails WP:NPRODUCT Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, United States of America, and Arkansas. Bryce M (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Walmart brands where it is listed with most of the prose from this article. Not enough content or coverage for a separate article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Splice (ice cream)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2009. Bells899 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. jolielover♥talk 19:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom NP (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete No sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Apple crisp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Crumble because Apple Crisp is just a crumble/crisp variation. As per WP:Merge and WP:Overlap Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge These are similar enough that a single article can cover them. Brown Betty (dessert) and Cobbler (food) could possibly be merged as well. Reywas92^Talk 16:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Brown Betty is made with a crumb layered with the fruit. Cobbler has the dough mixture laying on top of the fruit. I think there is enough of a difference to have separate pages for each of them. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: In a preliminary search I see 600 words of history (excluding quotes) in The Apple: A Delicious History. Some more marginal coverage in Food in Memory and Imagination: Space, Place, and Taste, a number of interesting threads to pull in other sources, e.g. "The dislocated Anglo-Indian community of mixed British and Indian heritage still eat stew and apple crumble"; "Such homely dishes as apple crisp and chicken pot pie are enjoying a mid-eighties vogue thanks to a sort of gustatory nostalgie de la boue, but they’re only on the menu in the most self-assuredly chic restaurants." Whonting (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I have no doubt that its notable but does it need a separate page from the main subject? I dont think it does. Especially when the similar dishes section (which isn't needed considering they all have their own articles) is larger than the actual history section. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
As you note above with your reference to WP:Overlap, it will depend on what extent the coverage duplicates what's at the merge target. If we merge a ton of well-sourced material that is DUE here but UNDUE at crumble, we are going to have to a) cut it and lose all that from Wikipedia, or b) keep it and have cobblercrumble unbalanced and overly focused on apple crisp/cobbler. Whonting (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Fixed, meant to say crumble. Whonting (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
As I said above Cobbler is a completely different dessert so that won't get affected. As to merging the pages into one, we wouldn't lose anything if its merged with due care and attention. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
As per this article in The Washington Post on baked fruit desserts, it says "There’s very little daylight between crisps and crumbles, but for those who have tried to draw the line, the inclusion of oats and/or nuts in the topping may be what sets the former apart, though that’s not always the case." Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Merge: I understand the rationale of the proposal, but after looking at sources, the most common newspaper conclusion appears to be that they are similar (sometimes moreso, sometimes less so) but somehow also distinct things whether it be ingredient wise or culture origin-wise. See , , and . Apple crisp was created on 15 February 2005 by an IP editor (located in the United States per the IP #). We see a 2022 discussion on the Apple crisp talk page Talk:Apple_crisp#This_"Apple_Crisp"_bears_no_relation_to_British_"Apple_Crumble" that makes the vociferous claim that an American crisp is very much not a British crumble. Crumble was created on 18 May 2003 by User:Heron. So we've had both articles for over 21 years now, I feel i would need a more researched proposal to agree to a merge than just the (albeit commonsense to a non-baker) observation that they are similar. And we used to have an article on Apple crumble that was merged to Crumble in 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple crumble. The Apple crumble article had been created following a proposal that agreed to split Apple crisp and Apple crumble into separate articles, see Talk:Apple_crisp#Splitting_proposal_12_June_2020. So I think any merge of these two candidates is destined to fail long term.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Milowent, reliable sources do say this is a matter of varieties of English rather than different dishes. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets for instance says "In any case, the term “crisp” is more common in the United States; the British use the name “crumble” more frequently. The French, too, have also enthusiastically adopted “le crumble.”" Whonting (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
A crisp and a crumble are basically the same dish. The topping is flour sugar and fat rubbed together to make a crumb, what Germans would call a streusel. The addition of oats or any other spices are just a variation. I can find Crumble recipes from the US throughout history, including variations like these . And crumbles in Britain traditionally didn't have oats, but there are now recipes that do , while Australians add coconut. In fact streusel can be made with nuts being added, shows there is not a fair distinction between the crumble and crisp. "The Oxford Companion to Food" says there is no recipes that the author could find in early cook books, so thought it was a WWII food recipe, much like Cobbler history in the UK. So based upon written records its actually Canadian, and the US had earlier recorded records for the crumble. And as we have already merged Grunts, pandowdy, and slumps and buckle to cobblers we have already set a consensus elsewhere. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Merge: for the same reasons I stated in the earlier discussion as also cited above by Milowent, and per the previous split proposal in 2020, which is the reverse of this merge proposal. The crisp and crumble haven't suddenly become the same dish in the last six years. The crisp has more (usually brown) sugar in it, and often adds oats and/or nuts. We have plenty of British sources claiming crumble, using plain streusel, as a post-war British (and Commonwealth) dish. Furthermore, neither article mentions that apple streusel desserts in English-speaking countries have an older provenance from Europe, from German variations of Apfel/Rhabarber Streuselkuchen, Swedish smulpaj, and so on. And quite how anyone can confuse apple crisp for apple cobbler or brown betty is anyone's guess, but that's another matter outside the scope of this request. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
??? The oldest recipe recorded for crumble is 1918, crisp is 1924. The oldest recorded apple struesel recipe is 1684! I dont get your argument. As per WP:Overlap we do not need articles for everything when there are crossovers. And this'll certainly is. And we are not saying merge with cobbler? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Carlie C's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP Bryce M (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and North Carolina. Bryce M (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been tagged as potential NCORP failure since 2024. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I added several sources. There should be enough significant, ongoing coverage to establish notability. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Multigrain flour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overwhelmingly based on unreliable sources (mostly promotional content), and itself reads like promotional content Informaldehyde (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. Informaldehyde (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Additionally, a cursory search of academic sources suggests there could be useful coverage of this topic, but I believe such coverage should be part of the Flour article, as there does not seem to be enough to merit its own article. Informaldehyde (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Multigrain bread and/or flour. There a good amount of GScholar coverage beyond the promotional mentioned but three pages on the topic aren't necessary. Reywas92^Talk 16:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Flour. It's clearly a type of flour and I see little chance it can support a stand-alone article. The merged section can always be split out if someone finds justification in the future. I'm finding it hard to articulate why merging to Multigrain bread isn't as good, but that's my esthetic judgment. M kuhner (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep multiple academic WP:RS coverage seems to support it as an independent topic, see . --cyclopia ^speak! 10:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Digital outdoor menu board

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing merge with menu. All of the sources on digital outdoor menu board are from companies selling signs, so there's not enough independent coverage to merit a separate article. Truthnope (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Technology. Truthnope (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge Just had to fix a couple things in this text, including the Culver's board example not being digital (it's just a lit board with decaled items and prices), and an entire AI section that claimed that changing served items per day was a recent innovation with AI (mechancially-changing menus for breakfast-lunch-dinner have existed for decades). I also question the writing involving 'advantages/disadvantages' here that tries to create a bizarre pro/con about the concept revolving around known upkeep costs rather than the obvious factor of 'does the customer know what they're ordering or not?' or about them going down when the store's Internet does when local storage handles that issue easily. Likely an article that should've just focused on outdoor menu boards since the drive-thru was innovated rather than just the digital age handled clumsily. Nathannah • 📮 01:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge as there are not enough independent sources to warrant a separate article. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 07:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Looks like consensus is forming, but other than that, this is not an easy one. What here is worth merging? Menu has severe sourcing shortcomings of its own. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a soft deletion. Editors can request the article's undeletion for any reason. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Evoca Cola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Cited sources are either non-independent (the brand's website and facebook page) or do not mention evoca cola (the Natural Society article). Other language versions of the article reveal this source, which is a short WP:ROUTINE local news article, half of which is simply quotes from a representative of the company. I can find no sources about either the company or the cola which might plausibly indicate notability. Article reads like a promotional puff piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Products-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The three sources are the brand's own website, its Facebook page, and an article that doesn't even mention it. A search found only retailer listings, a press release and YouTube taste-tests. No reliable independent coverage (WP:GNG). Onatic (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2026 (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.

Coney I-Lander

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source are listed on the article, failing GNG. OWaunTon (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oklahoma. OWaunTon (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The article previously had sources but all four were removed in this March 2025 edit by an IP claiming to be affiliated with the subject. मल्ल (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: long before the COI IP edit, this survived the first nomination from 2008 under the lower standards of the era (but also after a sourcing beef-up that was clearly challenged by the IP). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

FISEC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doing a cursory search on the internet, this appears to lack any form of significance that would qualify it under the WP:GNG. Additionally, this article merely covers a timeline and the group objectives, failing to show any notability throughout. A person of sorts (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. A person of sorts (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete I found a 1992 paper, but since that has zero cites it indicates minimal to no attention by the community. Hence a very clear delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to European Federation of Food Science and Technology. FISEC was that federation's student council, so the title is a plausible search term. The 1992 source above is a short item in Food Control of uncertain independence, not significant independent coverage, and nothing else found meets WP:NORG. A short sourced line at the target would help, so the redirect points to content that actually names it. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More supports for the redirect....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I also would support a redirect, considering if it's a possible connection I would see it as reasonable.A person of sorts (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Flintstones Chewable Vitamins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge to List of The Flintstones media's section "In popular culture", where it already has a paragraph. The sources in this article are pretty bad, almost entirely primary with one AP story about Betty being added in the 90s. A WP:BEFORE search turned up almost nothing that wasn't marketing material, with an article on Mentalfloss (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26157/brief-history-flintstones-vitamins) and a 2015 article from Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/problem-childrens-multivitamins-supplements-324545) (see WP:NEWSWEEK) both missing the mark. There is one WP:RS from Marketplace (https://www.marketplace.org/story/2022/12/02/why-are-flintstones-vitamins-and-cereal-still-popular-decades-after-the-show-ended), a public radio publication, but I think two sources here is weak and not justifying of a WP:CFORK Yojo98 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, Medicine, and United States of America. Yojo98 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Products-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep and improve (though probably move to just Flintstones Vitamins, currently redirecting there). Vitamins are not "media", they are a commercial product with an end use and impact distinct from their use of a trademark as a sales mechanism. BD2412 T 19:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Agree that Flintstones Vitamins would be more appropriate under WP:COMMONNAME. I would say that to have its own page on the merits you described, we would need proof of it fulfilling the WP:GNG requirements. Yojo98 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Neutral comment Why would we redirect a nutritional supplement like a children's vitamin to a 'in pop culture' article? It should go to the manufacturers' article first over what would just be a bare mention of the vitamin's existence in the former. Nathannah • 📮 21:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
@Nathannah: My understanding is that the manufacturer changed at one point, although Bayer does seem to be the long-term stable manufacturer now. Still. for a company of that size, I don't know that the one line mentioning this product is a helpful redirect target for readers. BD2412 T 23:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge – Agree it doesn't need to have a standalone article, and I don't find the proposed target to be too inappropriate. FaviFake (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I won't lose sleep if this is merged. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:INPOPCULTURE sections are usually something to avoid unless there's significant coverage. The paragraph is not even sourced. Also, the vitamins aren't a form of media. – The Grid (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Agree with your points here, it just seemed like the most apt merge candidate for me. I'm also comfortable with a straight-up delete. Sources could be merged from the current stand-alone article (the AP and marketplace source) to replace the DVD citation that's currently in the list article Yojo98 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge into The Flintstones - potentially as a new "Merchandise" section? That way it could also be home to a mention of Pebbles (cereal). However I'm not wedded to this idea ~~and I'd support a straight delete too.~~ Netstars22 (talk to me!) 21:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Netstars22: Deletion is not proposed in the nomination, and should be off the table given that there are clearly sources to show the subject to be noteworthy within the context of the franchise, even if arguably not independently notable. BD2412 T 23:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  - Ah yes, I do see that it's specifically a merge nom now. Updating my earlier nom to note that but I will maintain my opinion on a merge target. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 00:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - for children of Generation X, this product was a Brand-name status symbol for conspicuous consumption. If you casually mentioned in the School Cafeteria that you had taken your Flintstone Vitamin that morning, as you fiddled with the alligator on your Lacoste sweater, you were telegraphing your middle-class status, as much as you name-dropped your dad's wood-paneled station wagon, your older brother's frat at Columbia University, your NFL-branded duvet that grandma bought you, your new 10-speed bike, or your mom's new Bicentennial couch from Ethan Allen. The subject of this article was not just about nutrition. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi Bearian, while I appreciate your anecdotal comment, it would be helpful if you linked to any WP:RS that support the comment you made here. The issue at hand is that the article contains almost none of the information you provided and is mostly a list of products with WP:PRIMARY sources. Yojo98 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge While I am sympathetic to Bearian (I too used to take flinstones vitamins) but I googled (with the hope I could find some sources and couldn't find anything. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

merge to the Flintsones instead, this isn't a media item. It's a medical item. Not much for sourcing, this in the Saturday Evening Post , but that's about the best I got in my searches. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Pages 85-91 of this FTC report discusses how companies create their product and market them to kids as they will be the "first" to use it, albeit not specifically for these vitamins; there are other original research papers about this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- I note that we don't even have an article on Children's vitamins. BD2412 T 17:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see consensus against a standalone article, but a lack of agreement as to a merger target: should we use the media list or the main article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for merge target. I nominated to the media list since that's already the content fork off of the main Flintstones page. I understand it's imperfect given that this isn't media exactly, but it would feel odd in the main page too given the section heading there is "other media". Right now I don't think there's enough WP:RS for an entirely new section in the main Flintstones page Yojo98 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I nominated the main page with the idea of creating a "Merchandise" section after the SpongeBob SquarePants article as that has a setup of a "media/merchandise" section and a content fork (List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise) - although that one is a bit of a misnomer; it's mostly media. Another style of having it in the main article section is offered up in Bluey. Netstars22 (talk to me!) 02:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Flintstones vitamins have been around for a long time. -- NYC Guru (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the subject's age, but on whether there is sufficient sourcing and coverage (I have no opinion there). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Chocolate bullets

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Australian and New Zealand dishes where they are mentioned. No SIGCOV, exclusively basic mentions. Searched Australia and NZ news sites, Trove, Google News Archive, general Google search, local food book collection and the Internet Archive, including for "liquorice bullets". Whonting (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Australia, and New Zealand. Whonting (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ per above, but according to WP:BLAR this sort of thing doesn't need an AFD as long as no-one objects. I certainly wouldn't have and I don't think anyone else is actively watching this article. Graham87 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Changed my !vote to keep after the expansion/referencing noted below. Graham87 (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep I for one am glad this came to an AfD. I have located and added a number of reliable sources that provide varying levels of coverage and started expanding the article. I intend to add more to it over the coming days depending what other sources I can locate, but I do think that there is enough here to satisfy GNG already. Dfadden (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Hey @Dfadden, thanks for looking in. I was hoping this could be kept and I was missing sources, which is why I took this to AfD rather than BLAR'd it. Looking at these sources though -- I saw a few of them and disregarded them as passing, and others that have been added don't appear to constitute significant coverage. The only two that really could constitute SIGCOV, the PerthNow and Nine pieces, are fluffy lifestyle pieces in the format of "hey chocolate lovers, a new product has hit the shelves!". Sections are almost certainly lifted from press releases, which under WP:NEWSORG aren't considered SIGCOV. I mean, both start with "It's a great day to be a chocolate fan, with a fresh drop of new sweets hitting confectionary aisles nationwide today." and "Sweet tooths are salivating over the arrival of a new pink lolly." These are not conducting the independent, substantive analysis that we are looking to write articles from. Whonting (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the message Whonting. The way I read WP:NEWSORG is that blog-style articles published on the website of a reliable news source may still be as reliable as news articles from the same outlet. I would also argue the source from the Australian (and additional coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald that i did not include here) that cover the Prime Minister opening an upgrade to the Darrell Lea factory specifically to export bullets is indeed SIGCOV and unquestionably reliable. I believe this article is now far better sourced than many other articles on Australian confectionary products (although, I realise here we are only discussing this article). I have attempted to find sources independent of the manufacturers to support every claim in this article. I'm not sure how much "independent, substantive analysis" you will find for any snack food, but given the number of passing mentions I found but ruled out (such as this piecce from the Australian Financial Review ), these are something well ingrained in Australian culture. That the author bothered to mention it shows this, but a reader outside Australia would probably be left wondering "what the heck are chocolate bullets?" My go to reference in such situations is wikipedia, and I think it serves the encyclopedia well to keep it, even if some of the sources are marginal. Of course, this is just my opinion and if others disagree i will accept the consensus. Dfadden (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll just clarify that the part of NEWSORG I was referencing was "Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release". The Australian piece has a little more coverage, but I'll gently correct that bullets were only one of the products the factory was being expanded for, and that it ultimately includes two (generously three) sentences on bullets, and that bullets are being treated as one of several Darrell Lea products being exported. I think if you're more inclusionist this may be SIGCOV, and if you're more deletionist it may not be. To the rest, I think that's a helpful way to think about whether to include an article, but it probably falls into WP:ITSUSEFUL and against the principles of the GNG. Like you, I'm happy to defer to consensus. Pinging @Graham87 for the further discussion on sourcing. Whonting (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I've read this thread. Not sure what I think now ... but I've done a search of my own and haven't found anything more. Maybe this is an example where the quantity of sources helps at least a bit. Graham87 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not completely unsympathetic to Whonting's concerns, and I agree that I am viewing this from more of an inclusionist perspective. I can make an argument however that if accept that interpretation of NEWSORG here, it still doesn't completely invalidate the sources. Rather, they would be treated as WP:PRIMARY sources. As an example, the PerthNow source is only used to confirm the claim that Darrell Lea sell bullets in Australia, eg. straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I have been careful to avoid any interpretation from this source beyond confirming basic facts. I dont think that any of the information clearly derived from press releases is used in article to give WP:UNDUE weight, nor is the tone promotional. I dont agree that WP:ITSUSEFUL is a fair characterisation of my rationale. Eg. This is more than a dictionary definition, and isn't a list of phone numbers or restaurants with great pasta. Rather it is a neutral article that provides context to something that is often referenced in passing, but would be otherwise intangible to some audiences.

I have been pondering Graham87's last comment. There is an interesting interpretation at WP:BARE#Significance of coverage that I think is a useful way to approach this, considering significance as sufficient to serve as the basis for a good encyclopedic article. The source from the Australian and others like the Sail World article and a TV Series episode that make brief but deliberate mentions may not be expansive essays on the cultural significance of chocolate bullets. However, they do provide enough additional context to allow the article to be more than just a description of a snack, and support the notion they are indeed culturally significant. I'll leave it to others to decide if this is a good article, but I would argue with the addition of those sources, it reads at least as an encyclopedic one. Dfadden (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - after noted referencing article seems to have sufficient sourcing. Jishara (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. At over one hundred years old, we can relax about concerns about promotion from the company. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Gentle frying (via WP:PROD on 4 May 2026) by Gladdening (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Templates for Discussion

Redirects for Discussion

Schmear at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 November 4#Schmear (4 November 2026 – 2 July 2026)