Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chips Ahoy! (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It obvious that it is totally irrelevant whether this meets WP:GNG or not, it is, as I am told "an iconic American brand" therefore there is no purpose served by dragging this out any longer that I have already. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver  21:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Chips Ahoy!
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable, a promotional article about a particular brand of Chocolate chip cookies with no obvious reason to include it in an encyclopedia. fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Dysklyver 20:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, WHAAAATTT!!!!!, how could chips ahoy! be up for deletion? they are about the tastiest bikkies out there, surely they meet WP:YUMMY? oh drat, don't we have such a policy..... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in e.g. Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, Volume 1, also 2, 3 etc.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fast Food and Junk Food, An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, by Andrew F. Smith. possibly a good source, Pontificalibus should give the page numbers from his copy though since it isn't available online.
 * The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes and Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake PieCountryman Press/W.W. Norton. I have no opinion on whether this book is a reliable source, I can't even tell if it is researched or not, let alone the fact checking it went through.
 * [] This NY Times article is a good start.
 * Dysklyver 11:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per coverage in the NYT and offline sources. Wikipedia does not require that the sources be easily available online, only that they exist and that someone would be able to verify information in the article about the subject if they had them. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable with significant coverage in multiple types of sources. Not sure what the nom was thinking with this one? WP:BEFORE --  Dane talk  21:02, 7 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.