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) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced there's any reason to merge this with
Cheese cracker .... it doesn't seem to be notable in its own right.
-- HighKing++ 17:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Please post two links that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. You have posted a link to Google Search but this does not qualify for the purposes of establishing notability. You have mentioned the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribute but you have not posted links to any references.
This Houston Chronicle reference is a mention-in-passing and fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly,
this Chicago Tribune reference is also a mere mention-in-passing (of the product, not the manufacturer) and likewise fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
-- HighKing++ 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
HighKing: Please read my comment carefully. I'm on your side! J947(
c ) (
m) 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ATraintalk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - a relevant brand of cheese crackers. Aleccat 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I totally get that and all, but there are sources in this discussion. Stub the article and expand it. Do not be a deletionist. --Aleccat 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
PMC: well that's a lot better, propose close re
WP:HEY.
Dysklyver 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This brand is definitely notable and is probably the best known competitor to
Cheez-It. (Either way, I oppose "merge into
Cheese cracker" since merging a brand into that page makes no sense. The only viable option I can see in lieu of deletion or keeping is "redirect to
List of Kraft brands#Mondelez International".)
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
delete It doesn't seem to me that anyone is looking at the references that people keep pointing at. Mostly they are passing references; the rest are uniformly "Cheese Nips are Kraft's version of Cheese-Its." Being able to find them on a store shelf somewhere isn't notability.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep while the sources provided may not devote much space to discussing these bad tasting Cheez–It knockoffs, I will contend that the sources argue for the notability of this product by treating it like something the reader already knows about.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List_of_Kraft_brands#Mondelez_International. There's nothing in the current article worth preserving. It's 100% promo despite being a
WP:DIRECTORY listing, thus doubly excluded per
WP:NOT. Redirect is the best option in this case. Someone wants to develop it down the road? Fine! But since it ended up at AfD, the redirect is the best approach.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sourcing found by PMC above, which is enough to satisfy our inclusion requirements.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepStatista reports that in 2016, 1.5 million Americans consumed eight or more bags of Cheeze Nips. Since Wikipedia notability is a measure of attention to a topic by the world-at-large, this statistic alone is sufficient as evidence of Wikipedia notability. The counter-hypothesis would be that these 1.5 million Americans bought these crackers without knowing what they were buying.
Unscintillating (
talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Unscintillating, perhaps you should go and read
WP:WHYN, and then read the notability policies again as you clearly don't understand them, your definition of notability is actually stated as what it is not! notability is nothing to do with something being famous, it is entirely to do with the presence of multiple reliable independent sources that have substantial coverage of the subject.
Dysklyver 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WHYN is not part of the guideline proper. If you look in the WP:N history, I think you will see that it was rejected ten years ago. There is no such thing as "notability policy", unless you mean
WP:V#Notability. The place to start in reading WP:N is the lede and the nutshell, which is what supports my !vote.
Unscintillating (
talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
You might want to tell the relevant people how a large section of the current
WP:N guideline was rejected 10 years ago, it is still marked as a current guideline on the main notability policyGuideline page. Neither the lede or the nutshell are part of the guideline either, but you are supposed to use these things to interpret it.
Dysklyver 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WHYN is not a part of the standard, so let's move on. As for the lede and nutshell of WP:N, they are what they are, and they are not there to interpret GNG.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As it stands now, the sources in the article satisfy the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:13, 23 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.
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) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced there's any reason to merge this with
Cheese cracker .... it doesn't seem to be notable in its own right.
-- HighKing++ 17:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Please post two links that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. You have posted a link to Google Search but this does not qualify for the purposes of establishing notability. You have mentioned the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribute but you have not posted links to any references.
This Houston Chronicle reference is a mention-in-passing and fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly,
this Chicago Tribune reference is also a mere mention-in-passing (of the product, not the manufacturer) and likewise fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
-- HighKing++ 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
HighKing: Please read my comment carefully. I'm on your side! J947(
c ) (
m) 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ATraintalk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - a relevant brand of cheese crackers. Aleccat 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I totally get that and all, but there are sources in this discussion. Stub the article and expand it. Do not be a deletionist. --Aleccat 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
PMC: well that's a lot better, propose close re
WP:HEY.
Dysklyver 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This brand is definitely notable and is probably the best known competitor to
Cheez-It. (Either way, I oppose "merge into
Cheese cracker" since merging a brand into that page makes no sense. The only viable option I can see in lieu of deletion or keeping is "redirect to
List of Kraft brands#Mondelez International".)
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
delete It doesn't seem to me that anyone is looking at the references that people keep pointing at. Mostly they are passing references; the rest are uniformly "Cheese Nips are Kraft's version of Cheese-Its." Being able to find them on a store shelf somewhere isn't notability.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep while the sources provided may not devote much space to discussing these bad tasting Cheez–It knockoffs, I will contend that the sources argue for the notability of this product by treating it like something the reader already knows about.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List_of_Kraft_brands#Mondelez_International. There's nothing in the current article worth preserving. It's 100% promo despite being a
WP:DIRECTORY listing, thus doubly excluded per
WP:NOT. Redirect is the best option in this case. Someone wants to develop it down the road? Fine! But since it ended up at AfD, the redirect is the best approach.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sourcing found by PMC above, which is enough to satisfy our inclusion requirements.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepStatista reports that in 2016, 1.5 million Americans consumed eight or more bags of Cheeze Nips. Since Wikipedia notability is a measure of attention to a topic by the world-at-large, this statistic alone is sufficient as evidence of Wikipedia notability. The counter-hypothesis would be that these 1.5 million Americans bought these crackers without knowing what they were buying.
Unscintillating (
talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Unscintillating, perhaps you should go and read
WP:WHYN, and then read the notability policies again as you clearly don't understand them, your definition of notability is actually stated as what it is not! notability is nothing to do with something being famous, it is entirely to do with the presence of multiple reliable independent sources that have substantial coverage of the subject.
Dysklyver 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WHYN is not part of the guideline proper. If you look in the WP:N history, I think you will see that it was rejected ten years ago. There is no such thing as "notability policy", unless you mean
WP:V#Notability. The place to start in reading WP:N is the lede and the nutshell, which is what supports my !vote.
Unscintillating (
talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
You might want to tell the relevant people how a large section of the current
WP:N guideline was rejected 10 years ago, it is still marked as a current guideline on the main notability policyGuideline page. Neither the lede or the nutshell are part of the guideline either, but you are supposed to use these things to interpret it.
Dysklyver 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
WHYN is not a part of the standard, so let's move on. As for the lede and nutshell of WP:N, they are what they are, and they are not there to interpret GNG.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As it stands now, the sources in the article satisfy the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:13, 23 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.