Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois corn flake

: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 delete. Wizardman 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

=[[Illinois corn flake]]=

:{{la|Illinois corn flake}} ([{{fullurl:Illinois corn flake|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois corn flake}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Not-notable, un-encyclopedic. There should be a speedy cat for stuff like this. ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. CSD: Perhaps unpatented nonsense? Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

: Comment - I did check the G1 criteria and I don't think this qualifies as "patent nonsense" or "unsalvagebly incoherent", or maybe I am being too generous... – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::Reply. Which is why I propose unpatented nonsense. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as Non-notable and un-encyclopedic. Paste (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I have a soda cracker that bears an uncanny resemblance to the shape of Colorado. Wonder if it's worth something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Still delete, though somewhat weaker than before. At the suggestion of TenPoundHammer, I had another look at the offered sources. It does seem that the cornflake has achieved some level of public notoriety in neutral, third party sources. It still strikes me as fairly ephemeral, the sort of thing that would be used as filler in a print newspaper. Wikipedia is not Ripley's Believe It or Not! By all means transwiki this to Wikinews, which is the Wikimedia project where this sort of material belongs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP Its all facts and made many newspapers, it made newspapers here in ireland and was definitely a big stroy in Chicago, why not have it in this encyclopedia, it tells the story of someone who used the net for a real benefit and that sums up everyones goals. I say fair play to the girls and the story should stay.

:http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6023477

:http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/856338,flake032208.article

:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-odd-illinois-corn-flake,1,3301419.story

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniclifford (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Those sources are all perfectly fine; however, I feel that this still falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. People sell crazy stuff on eBay all the time; we don't need a Wikipedia article for every single nutbar eBay auction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP Its notable because of the amount paid for a cornflake, and all the press it got. Not just local media attention. Its also not everyday type news.[http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/22/corn.flake.ap/index.html][http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340608,00.html][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23756725][http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/23/illinois-shaped_corn_flake_sold_for_1350/1269/]AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:*As much as my otters want to trust the judgment of a ferret (mustelid bias), they and I still aren't quite convinced that the amount of coverage "goes beyond the context of a single event". Nonetheless, I'm still changing to Neutral pending further research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - if the above sources are added to the article, I may be persuaded to withdraw the nom. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:*I'm trying to rewrite it but I'm really having a hard time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS, sources or not. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment - Hasn't there been a consensus to place any "flagged for rescue" tag on talk pages, rather than on article pages, in order not to generate a false impression of dispute? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Comment - I moved the rescue tag to the talk page per Template:Rescue.  – ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:Comment Consensus changed to allow the {{tl|rescue}} to be used in mainspace. Fosnez (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete If you liked the "Skittles incident" article, you'll love the Illinois corn flake article. I suppose this is "historical" if you can't remember what happened last week.... Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Something that makes big news likethis must stay, do you guys think Wiki is ruining out of room that a small page like this cant stay.. KEEP KEEP KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.191.126 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 March 2008

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a news outlet. This is classic "news of the weird", and will be forgotten by next week. --Phirazo 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Any chance this could be transwikied to WikiNews? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It rates a mention in the article about Ebay... I think it's like every other week that we get a story about something really bizarre that's offered for sale there, and that someone's crazy enough to bid on, like a severed head. It's always good publicity for Ebay. Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename either food collecting or cornflake collecting. In the past decade people have started collecting processed food with interesting shapes, and this cornflake is merely the latest publicized example. Nobody will remember the name of the cornflake, except collectors of cornflakes.jonathon (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep you will all hate me for this, but WP:N defines notability as: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject.. I have rewitten the article with sources and a couple of {{tl|fact}} templates where I couldn't find them quickly. Fosnez (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

:comment I removed the {{tl|fact}} templates as I have added sources to cover them too - Fosnez (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This belongs to be beside the French toast that seems to have the picture of Jesus Christ. It has already had its 15 minutes of fame. B.Wind (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - has 3rd party sources, the ebay and the money make it so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, delete; utterly trivial, unencyclopedic incident. Yes, there is "coverage", but it's ephemeral "news of the weird" type stuff, like tortillas with the face of Jesus, and all this will be forgotten by midsummer. --MCB (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I simply cant choose a side on this one. One one hand, it's notalble but on the other hand its absurd. I'm leaning more towards keep, however, part of me wants it to kill the article with fire. Dustitalk to me 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - yesterday's news, not notable and for the ages, not even for next month. Fame is fleeting for a flake. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 2 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.