Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vichy Pastilles

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. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Pastilles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. unsourced Dysklyver 20:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Vichy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way would that improve either the encyclopedia, or Vichy? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I must ask that too. Dysklyver 19:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Vichy Pastilles is a locally-produced product unique to Vichy, and the selective merge target article also includes a mention of it. At the very least, should be redirected as a valid search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added more referenced info. They may look like sweets but they have played a significant part in French (cultural) history. It was also acquired for a quarter billion a few years ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have been around since 1825, and thanks to the hard work of Zigzig20s in expanding, this now easily meets WP:GNG. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been almost completely rewritten (see diff) it is now much better than it was previously, and the article now makes it clear that this topic goes beyond being 'just a brand', it has real history and cultural significance - something not asserted in the article when I nominated it. Dysklyver 13:34, 21 October 2017 (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.