Deletion of Shamrock Shake

Comment: Again, did anyone read the hits generated by the searches? There is only one link in the searches you pointed out that actually concerns the shamrock shake. Same point as above: most hits are the press releases from McDonald's that happened to be published on major web sites, blogs with one hit being a blog about the blogs that mention the shamrock shake, and the rest are hits with the words "shamrock" and "shake" in them but aren't about the "shamrock shake". I went at least 5 pages into the searches and not a single hit met ,  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PSTS||WP:V)

Comment: Yeah, I did read these.  Look, if an independent reputable publisher prints a story that is effectively a press release, that doesn't make it any less a valid reference. We're talking about the Shamrock Shake here, not Watergate. You want investigative journalism? What is there to say beyond the press release that you would expect a newspaper to tackle? It's up to consensus on the related articles if this is better merged or not, but it's clearly notable, and not a candidate for deletion.  In the US and Canada, I'm willing to guess more people have heard of a Shamrock Shake than can name many of their national or local political leaders. Arguing that this topic, while of zero humanitarian or intellectual value, is not notable just doesn't pass the smell test.  If this topic wasn't notable according to , we would have to change 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: to the original merge target on policy grounds (mainly  and ) with absolutely no prejudice to recreation with (and only with) sources that pass muster. This is one of those "I know it is notable, but I can't prove it" situations
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:MERGE)

Comment: First hit is a blog, next few are the Canadian press release from McDonald's Canada. In the book hits, not a source is about the product, only a passing mention that does not establish ote|notability. Please note that WP Policy explicitly states that the number of hits on Google do not infer notability, it is the quality of the hits that matter and none of the Google hits meet the standards of inclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)