- 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Wheat Thins
- Wheat Thins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- [1] [2] NY Times articles - a good source focusing on whether they are crackers or not.
- [3] Creative Strategy in Advertising, By Bonnie L. Drewniany, A. Jerome Jewler. Only two paragraphs here as an example in a college coursebook, I don't think this is significant coverage.
- [4] Unforunatly this is only a passing mention in an article about crackers and chips in general referring to many other brands.
- [5] Buzzfeed article, I am dubious that buzzfeed is being mentioned, I rank it with the Daily Mail as unreliable sensationalism, to only be used in a situation of dire lack of better sources.
- Dysklyver 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep two extensive articles in the New York Times is more than enough to establish notability. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing with the fact this may be notable, but you should perhaps re-read WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources" - the NY times articles are the same 'source' as they are from the same orgainsation, so you should actually include one of the others as well for your argument. Notability is simply a test to show verifiability, no original research and NPOV, if you think it is something else, like how important something is, then go and read WP:WHYN. Dysklyver 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – An idea is to merge to Cracker (food) as per WP:ATD-M. North America 1000 09:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep enormous amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep certainly appears to meet GNG based on sourcing, and arguments already mentioned.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - More than enough coverage in reliable sources. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep subject is notable based on sources Lifeisstudyinghard ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep – Meets GNG. Source examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America 1000 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes GNG, see above. Carrite ( talk) 13:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Wheat Thins
- Wheat Thins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- [1] [2] NY Times articles - a good source focusing on whether they are crackers or not.
- [3] Creative Strategy in Advertising, By Bonnie L. Drewniany, A. Jerome Jewler. Only two paragraphs here as an example in a college coursebook, I don't think this is significant coverage.
- [4] Unforunatly this is only a passing mention in an article about crackers and chips in general referring to many other brands.
- [5] Buzzfeed article, I am dubious that buzzfeed is being mentioned, I rank it with the Daily Mail as unreliable sensationalism, to only be used in a situation of dire lack of better sources.
- Dysklyver 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep two extensive articles in the New York Times is more than enough to establish notability. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing with the fact this may be notable, but you should perhaps re-read WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources" - the NY times articles are the same 'source' as they are from the same orgainsation, so you should actually include one of the others as well for your argument. Notability is simply a test to show verifiability, no original research and NPOV, if you think it is something else, like how important something is, then go and read WP:WHYN. Dysklyver 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – An idea is to merge to Cracker (food) as per WP:ATD-M. North America 1000 09:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep enormous amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep certainly appears to meet GNG based on sourcing, and arguments already mentioned.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - More than enough coverage in reliable sources. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep subject is notable based on sources Lifeisstudyinghard ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Lifeisstudyinghard ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep – Meets GNG. Source examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America 1000 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes GNG, see above. Carrite ( talk) 13:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.