Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilla (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 this is going to be a keep, there is one good source, It is a known brand, that is plenty good enough. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver  21:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nilla
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Kindly focus on sourcing it, rather than rehasing the pointless argument of: theres endless mentions, its super famous and everyone eats them!!. Dysklyver 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources provided (or located) establish notability for the subject. Comatmebro  (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep extensive coverage in the NYT Washington Post, also for good measure a business ethics book . Those all cover the brand as a brand advertising campaign. This isn't counting the countless references in every print newspaper and cookbook/book on the history of food in the United States. The two from WaPo and NYT are enough to establish notability under CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, and GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick critic of those sources, even if two sources was even vaguely close to passing GNG, which it isn't, you still only have supplied one usable source.
 * this is a fairly extensive look at the brands social media presence in a NY times article and a wapo article which picks up the story.
 * Law and Ethics in the Business Environment By Terry Halbert, Elaine Ingulli. Literally a single sentence in a textbook that mentions 12 other brands on the same page.
 * Dysklyver 11:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is an extensive look at Nilla as a case study for new marketing techniques, and was the article that the WaPo story was commenting on. Extensive coverage in the NYT or any paper of record for any country creates a strong presumption of notability because those stories are likely going to be picked up and further commented on independently by other news organizations, both national and local, and we see that in this case with WaPo picking it up. The business ethics book is a short mention but it is used as an example of marketing campaigns along with a list of other cultural icons. That says a lot because it is assuming everyone who reads it will instantly recognize it. PMC also provided sourcing in article from a paper in a major US city. We should keep this or any article about culturally iconic food brands from any country. As I mentioned there are plenty of sources available for this in quite literally every US newspaper. I just chose to list the two most important papers in the US because generally everyone agrees that coverage by the NYT and WaPo meets inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the excellent source-finding by Tony. I have also added a source to the article and will be returning with more. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cultural prevalence of Nilla wafers, being used as a skin tone descriptor: . A psych study that used Nilla wafers to study packaging preferences ("labels used by the three brands in the US (blue background with white type for Oreo, yellow background with red type for Nilla Wafers, and red..."). Nilla wafers are apparently commonly used "for oral administration to mice and rats" in scientific experiments:.
 * Oh, and Dysklyver, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that Nilla is not mentioned in the NYTimes article, given that the article contains a section titled "Lesson of the Nilla Wafers". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per above sources. And note that nominating three related products within six minutes of each other casts serious doubts as to whether the nominator is even attempting to do any WP:BEFORE whatsoever, and starts to look an awful lot like nominating to prove a WP:POINT.   G M G  talk   13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So basically this is going straight down the path I thought it would. Arguing fame/cultural significance, usage as a word, usage in popular culture, and other unsubstantial claims. No-one is arguing they are culturally insignificant, I have no doubt 50 million Americans like eating them. 'it fails WP:GNG' is the issue raised, how difficult is it to find three articles about Nilla wafers if they are so goddam ubiquitous? There is no presumption that it notable just because it has a section in a NY Times article. (also I made an error in my original statement, the Washington post article is a republication/pickup of the NY Times article, which is based on a statement from an advertising agency which works for Nilla - not that it is barely mentioned which is what I previously said (and based on a faulty search tool), Sorry.) although you can't build an article with this source alone, I look forward to something else. Dysklyver  14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the above sources. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:44, 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.