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.
Weak Keep TUC is a well-known brand in the UK with widespread availability; while it might not receive reams of coverage, I don't think it's significantly less notable than the
many other branded crackers we also have articles on. The article could be improved though by the addition of nutritional details, history, etc.
Eloquai (
talk)
11:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a quick note for the avoidance of doubt: I'm not saying that we should keep this article just because there are other pages on similar topics. I think that, like TUC, many of those other crackers are worthy of articles in their own right given their widespread consumption and brand recognition.
Eloquai (
talk)
14:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Can I please ask, to better understand your position, what would you consider to be a good demonstration of notability for branded snacks/biscuits/foods? Would you also support the deletion of articles like
Twix,
Reese's Pieces,
Kit Kat,
Maryland Cookies, etc? Please note, I'm not trying to sneak in an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather trying to work out how we might go about establishing notability in this area given that we don't have a site-wide policy on notability for food.
Eloquai (
talk)
The relevant guideline in the absence of a specific guideline is
WP:GNG, which is applicable to this article. I have outlined what I would do with each article you mentioned if I had free choice (which I don't), if they were nominated (which I am not planning to at this time).
If you printed out both articles and compared them you might get an idea. Also the KitKat is more culturally significant than the twix, and this shows, for example the android kitkat operating system, the trademark rows over the shape, the longer established timeframe. all these factors mean more sources are available.
Dysklyver00:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
It's more nuanced than that, one is more notable because its article can be better because there are more sources, technically if the sources to improve the article were identified, it does not matter if the article is low quality, because it can be better. In the specific case of KitKat, the article has been improved already, this is the best policy for not having an article deleted. But it is not essential, although arguing sources not added to the article is sometimes more difficult. You should note the KitKat article has 46 sources, including coverage by the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and ofter national publications. Compare that to this TUC Cracker article with two local sources in the article, no additional sources identified at AfD, and a WP:BEFORE that shows nowhere near the depth of coverage KitKat has.
Dysklyver08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Consumer Goods Europe. Corporate Intelligence on Retailing. 2004. In early 1999, Griesson and General Biscuits Deutschland formed a joint venture, with Griesson owning 60% and Danone 40%...Headquarters are now in Polch...The company's main brand names nowadays are Prinzenrolle..., Leicht & Cross..., and TUC and Ritz (crackers). TUC are...available...since May 2000, as reduced fat...
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.
Weak Keep TUC is a well-known brand in the UK with widespread availability; while it might not receive reams of coverage, I don't think it's significantly less notable than the
many other branded crackers we also have articles on. The article could be improved though by the addition of nutritional details, history, etc.
Eloquai (
talk)
11:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a quick note for the avoidance of doubt: I'm not saying that we should keep this article just because there are other pages on similar topics. I think that, like TUC, many of those other crackers are worthy of articles in their own right given their widespread consumption and brand recognition.
Eloquai (
talk)
14:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Can I please ask, to better understand your position, what would you consider to be a good demonstration of notability for branded snacks/biscuits/foods? Would you also support the deletion of articles like
Twix,
Reese's Pieces,
Kit Kat,
Maryland Cookies, etc? Please note, I'm not trying to sneak in an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather trying to work out how we might go about establishing notability in this area given that we don't have a site-wide policy on notability for food.
Eloquai (
talk)
The relevant guideline in the absence of a specific guideline is
WP:GNG, which is applicable to this article. I have outlined what I would do with each article you mentioned if I had free choice (which I don't), if they were nominated (which I am not planning to at this time).
If you printed out both articles and compared them you might get an idea. Also the KitKat is more culturally significant than the twix, and this shows, for example the android kitkat operating system, the trademark rows over the shape, the longer established timeframe. all these factors mean more sources are available.
Dysklyver00:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
It's more nuanced than that, one is more notable because its article can be better because there are more sources, technically if the sources to improve the article were identified, it does not matter if the article is low quality, because it can be better. In the specific case of KitKat, the article has been improved already, this is the best policy for not having an article deleted. But it is not essential, although arguing sources not added to the article is sometimes more difficult. You should note the KitKat article has 46 sources, including coverage by the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and ofter national publications. Compare that to this TUC Cracker article with two local sources in the article, no additional sources identified at AfD, and a WP:BEFORE that shows nowhere near the depth of coverage KitKat has.
Dysklyver08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Consumer Goods Europe. Corporate Intelligence on Retailing. 2004. In early 1999, Griesson and General Biscuits Deutschland formed a joint venture, with Griesson owning 60% and Danone 40%...Headquarters are now in Polch...The company's main brand names nowadays are Prinzenrolle..., Leicht & Cross..., and TUC and Ritz (crackers). TUC are...available...since May 2000, as reduced fat...
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.