Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King 888

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. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King 888[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Ghits are primary and a little bit of blog notice. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobbes Goodyear. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.