Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millsberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 info MERGED to General Mills (there was another suggestion but I think this is the best one) - Nabla 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millsberry

Millsberry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod with reason "Significance unclear per WP:WEB". I'm moving it here for a wider discussion as it is mentioned on the Advergaming article, and it has been worked on by a variety of editors since creation in 2005. My listing is neutral SilkTork 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or merge. Semi-notable website maintained by General Mills. I'm not totally certain of its potential for expansion (it's been a stub for 2 years), so maybe it could just be merged into the General Mills article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I can see the potential for a redirect. And I'm always more in favour of redirects than deletions, as the existence of an article does reveal some interest. A deletion frustrates any future interest, where a redirect will point a reader in a suitable direction. Advergaming is another possible redirect - especially as it is already discussed there. SilkTork 12:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm just not seeing any notability here. Yes, it's there, it's from General Mills, but where are the references? Deiz talk 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've just added two non-blog and non-General Mills references - there are more out there. It appears to be one of the more significant of these new advergames. I'm coming round to thinking that it may be notable enough to have its own stand alone article, though I'm not entirely convinced that a redirect to Advergaming wouldn't be the better idea.SilkTork 12:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I'm not convinced that either of the sources (especially link 2) give "significant coverage" Corpx 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge The advergames have become a controverial topic, and this one seems notable, so if the article can not me kept, merge and dedirect to another article, such as general mills. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, DemandGen is a niche industry publication, IGO ref is passing in the extreme. Neither site (correct me if I'm wrong) appears to have an article, as would be expected of notable publications. You guys have read WP:WEB, right? Deiz talk 12:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found reliable, third party sources. Apparently, this is a very popular site for kiddie internet networking. Here's mention in the Washington Post, Boston Globe, CBS news, and an Ann Arbor newspaper. At worst, merge and redirect to advergaming. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They're all trivial mentions though, and I dont think enough to be "significant coverage" Corpx 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict), refs are from better sources, although still no more than a passing mention in any of them. Only the CBS ref does any more than mention the name, and even then is only a one liner. Deiz talk 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose they are incidental, but between the sheer number of mentions in reliable sources and google hits i think we're looking at a merge and/or redirect situation at worst, not delete. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The material should just go into the General Mills page. I don't see any reason why it will ever become a full article itself. Sxeptomaniac 22:47, 9 August 2007 (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.