Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of brand name food products


 * 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. Nominator has suggested a snow keep close and there are no delete !votes.Rlendog (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

List of brand name food products

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List-cruft according to the talk page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep because an article's talk page is not the final word. Nominating an article for deletion because of comments on the talk page that clearly violate the talk page guidelines will probably not get the article deleted. Brand name food products clearly meet the notability guidelines, so it can't be called listcruft. And still furthermore, don't call things cruft. I'm normally a deletionist, so advising keeping is somewhat rare for me, but the unexpected happens. ChromaNebula 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with the above poster.  Notability guidelines clearly met.  Idk224 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A discriminate list article with a distinct topical focus. The article has been cleaned up, and references have been added. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's have a look to see if this qualifies as listcruft according to the essay:
 * 1) The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - No - the list could be useful.
 * 2) The list is of interest to a very limited number of people - No - over 8000 views in the last month.
 * 3) The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - No - nothing in WP:IINFO precluding this kind of list.
 * 4) The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable - No - sources can be found, brand name food products are a notable concept.
 * 5) The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms - No - thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of possible entries.
 * 6) The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - Perhaps - thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of possible entries.
 * 7) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category - No - Plenty of redlinks, lists things that may be related to articles but do not have articles themselves.
 * 8) The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. - No - can't see why it shouldn't.
 * 9) Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available. - No - entirely objective.
 * 10) Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas. - No - entirely objective.
 * 11) The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. - Perhaps - hundreds of new brand names every day.
 * So, the only possible valid 'listcruft' objection one can make is that the list's scope is too large. Personally my only issue with the article is that a list of brand name food products should list food products. Names of companies should not feature in such a list except to describe specific products that they produce. Currently the list looks more like a List of food industry brand names. Either a rename or an extensive rewrite is in order but either way the list would be objective, useful and provide scope for additional information that a category cannot provide so I say Keep. Rubiscous (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * non !voting comment useful isn't really a keep argument, but I saw the afd tag 'cause I needed to look something up . 173.171.192.180 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly the sort of list we should have and have always had. Perhaps it should be broken down by country if the scope needs to be limited. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can this be nominated? I think the page should be expanded and cleaned up a bit. I also agree with Daniel Case, to organize the info listed by country and/or region. Tinton5 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Time for closure as WP:SNOW Keep? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2012 (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.