Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piffi allkrydda

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piffi allkrydda

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. —swpb^T 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial (non-exhaustive) source assessment:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://kockens.se/produkter/piffi-allkrydda-original/	Source is the manufacturer of the subject	~ Some detail	✘ No
http://www.gp.se/livsstil/krog/krogkollen-bamba-1.4077979		Trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/kockens/pressreleases/kockens-firar-100-kryddstarka-aar-1328144	Press release	Fairly trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/nataliakazmierska/article16386493.ab		Trivial mention	✘ No
http://www.swedishfoodshop.com/kockens-piffi-allkrydda	COI; source is selling the subject	No detail	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=NXRQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&dq=%22Piffi+allkrydda%22+-wikipedia#v=onepage&q=%22Piffi%20allkrydda%22%20-wikipedia&f=false		Trivial mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=SnjcDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&dq=%22Piffi+allkrydda%22+-wikipedia#v=onepage&q=%22Piffi%20allkrydda%22%20-wikipedia&f=false		Trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpb^T 13:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet minimum threshold for notability. No independent, substantive coverage. It's product advertising.Glendoremus (talk) 05:46, 11 February 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.