The result was merge to The Smith's Snackfood Company. MBisanz talk 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining db-spam and taking to AfD; I think consensus is that this isn't what db-spam is for, but let me know if I'm wrong. None of the first 50 ghits strike me as reliable. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are Hula Hoops notable? Yes, because multiple instances of in-depth reliable coverage can be found (such as pages 72–73 of ISBN 9781592530069, for starters, which goes into such details as the name of the person who designed the packaging for the re-branding as "Shocks") and there are other sources that add further non-directory information (such as ISBN 9780748760848, which states how much money was spent on "Hoopy McHula").
The question of whether Chipsticks is notable is answered in the same way: by determining whether multiple such independent in-depth reliable sources exist. We don't look for blankets. We look for sources.
Sometimes one will be bemused. But it's bemusement as to the unexpected subjects that turn out to be extensively studied and documented in sources by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not making a "long-debunked and fallacious argument" to argue the topic was notable; rather, I wanted to provide some context for someone who might find it useful it in order to reach an opinion. Logic dictates that if one brand of [horrific-tasting British maize-based snackfood sold in small bags to children] is found notable, another one is probably likely to be found in the same sources, discussed in the same way, and so looking at the comparable material is a good point to begin. Shimgray | talk | 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not clear that there's a single "Chipsticks" subject here, that these products are all necessarily the same, or that there's a single redirect target to be had. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]