Deletion of Banana powder

Comment: I find it difficult to believe the nom followed  and even did a cursory search of this topic as it took me only a few seconds to find non-trivial secondary coverage.http://books.google.com/books?id=mnh6aoI8iF8C&pg=PA873&dq=%22Banana+powder%22&hl=en&ei=Bz3zTJCLDouWsgOtzISbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Banana%20powder%22&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Cf8tAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Banana+powder%22&dq=%22Banana+powder%22&hl=en&ei=Bz3zTJCLDouWsgOtzISbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQhttp://books.google.com/books?id=DLx08zpU7jAC&pg=PA117&dq=%22Banana+powder%22&hl=en&ei=Bz3zTJCLDouWsgOtzISbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Banana%20powder%22&f=false.  I know from starting AfDs that setting them up takes longer than my search on this topic.  Go ahead the throw the "you're assuming bad faith!" charge at me.  I would be happy if this AfD was investigated and perhaps used as an example of why  needs to be an absolute rule
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Articles do indeed require notability, but just because it is not demonstrated does not mean the article should be deleted. That's why there's {{tl|notability}}. That's the point of , and why , at point 9, states ''Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.'' If that step had been followed sources could have been found. Without meaning to put words in Uncle G's mouth, the speedy discussion refers to
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPROVE||WP:BEFORE)