Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruskets

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruskets

Ruskets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable product. No refs. Graymornings_(talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's a two line-stub that was five minutes old when you nominated it for deletion. What's the rush? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's a notability issue, not about the quality of the article. Time is not making this product any more notable. Graymornings_(talk) 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• My point is, did you look yourself to see if you could find sources? There are thousands of very brief stubs with no references, the vast majority of Wikipedia article started out in a similar sad state. One day they will stop making Cheerios, and there won't be any new information on them, but will that change the fact that they were once a very popular cereal? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I did look for sources myself and couldn't find any beyond brief, trivial mentions on internet forums. If you can find info from reliable sources, please add it to the article. Graymornings_(talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern that Ruskets is Non-notable. That could very well be true. Weetabix is an international product. Few people know that Ruskets was the name of the product that was manufactured in the United States until the 1960's, which makes Ruskets a part of the genealogy of Weetabix. Perhaps this short stub will attract more information about the history and historical value of the product. The building, still being used as a food processing plant in Riverside, California, is a beautiful example of the art deco period of American architecture. If more information is gathered will it qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbee27 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-19 03:00:30
• Delete. If Google News finds only two passing mentions of a product, then the subject is likely not notable. It may well be almost identical to Weetabix, but notability certainly doesn't transfer via perceived similarity. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that a rename and refactor to Loma Linda Foods is the way to go, since that is what I can find documented, and since that's what the article is documenting in its first sentence, and what the article's creator seems to want to expand upon above. The company has an article in ISBN 9780810853454 on page 176, for example, which gives a 1-sentence mention of the product. Wikipedia should address things in the way that sources do, and it is the company, not the product, that is what is documented by sources here, even by the sources that this article itself cites. The product just gets mentions. It just gets a mention here, for example. This title should be a redirect to the company, which is of course what renaming the page will automatically achieve. No deletion is required to achieve any of this. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: if Loma Linda Foods warrants its own article on WP (and if someone either creates the article or beefs up this one...) then I'll gladly chime in with the proposition above, for a merge/rename. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd also support a rename to Loma Linda Foods, which gets plenty of Google News hits and seems notable. Graymornings_(talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Me too, good thinkin' Uncle G. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep there has to be a reasonable mount of time given or articles to develop, and a nomination so soon after writing the article should , in my opinion, except for thinks like blp and copyvio, be rejected out of hand. Those who actually want to improve the encyclopedia, when seeing an article like this, should tag for more sources, advise the editor how to develop the article, and--if if help seems to be needed, look for sources oneself. If it was widely advertised, it will have been commented on. Most of the relevant periodicals for the period are not yet online--certainly not via the googles. DGG (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per DGG and it took me less than a minute to find 20-some listing on Google books,[1] at least a couple could help here. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the sources found by Benjiboi. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that neither you nor Benjiboi took the time to read the prior discussion, the books that your Google search turned up, or even the article under discussion here. If either of you had, you'd have found that several of these books just happen to contain the two words "ruskets" and "cereals" somewhere, and have nothing to say on the subject, and you'd also found that the one book in your list that does say something useful on the subject is the one that not only is already cited in the article but has also been already addressed in the discussion above, where it has been noted that on page 176 it gives a 1-sentence mention of the product in prose that actually deals with the company. Counting Google hits is not research. And contributing to an AFD discussion without reading either the article or the discussion, or indeed without even reading the very sources that one is putting forward, does not help to advance it. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually it's a shame to assume of of that. These all might not be sources waxing eloquently on the fine virtues of a cereal product but combined they do support that the product was noteworthy enough to be mentioned even though the product's producers may have had an alternate, or even no, route to promoting this food item. -- Banjeboi 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what is a real shame? Nominating an article created by a new user minutes before it was created. Then, informing about the deletion without first welcoming the user or offering guidance about our policies. What ever happened to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers?

I wasn't aware that I hadn't welcomed the new user - I somehow thought I'd placed a welcome template before I'd nominated the article for deletion. Dumb mistake, and I apologize for it, but I don't make or fail to make noms for deletion based on the experience of the user. Please assume good faith on my part here. See the discussion above - I still don't believe that the product meets notability guidelines (the fact that the company had or didn't have routes to publicizing the cereal is irrelevant) and think that the creation/rename of Loma Linda Foods might be more appropriate and better-sourced. Graymornings_(talk) 10:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments are inappropriate, please accept my apologies. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You were right, I should be a bit more careful - no one wants to scare away new users. Graymornings_(talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I added the 2 (and only 2) references I found catalogued in the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index. These are not passing mentions, but part of the article and all of the article respectively. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (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.