Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUC (cracker)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

TUC (cracker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG as a non-notable brand Dysklyver  21:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to Cracker (food). North America1000 09:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete - somewhat well-known (and delicious), but not so much so for an encyclopedic article. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 09:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - most the crackers on that list aren't notable either, but we can't do everything at once :( Dysklyver  13:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Well known does not equal notable, the General Notability Guideline requires the existence of sufficient reliable independent sources to prove the subject is notable. Arguments to assert the subjective importance of an article are to be avoided, for more information read the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a fairly well-known brand of cracker biscuit. Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Long-established and widely known brand across Europe. Distinctive as a type and without other close competitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * Twix - merge to Mars, Incorporated.
 * Reese's Pieces - merge to List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company.
 * Kit Kat - keep, this is an example of exactly what I want to see, a well written, well referenced article, with plenty of useful information.
 * Maryland Cookies - merge to Burton's Biscuit Company.
 * It is hard to apply an absolute rule to brands, in some cases WP:CORPDEPTH is also applicable. Dysklyver  20:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be randomly inconsistent, and have given no guiding principle behind your decisions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Guiding principle = WP:GNG. Dysklyver  22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you see Twix and Kit Kat as having different conclusions, then you're doing it wrong (whatever "it" is). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Dysklyver  00:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So one is "more notable", because its article is better? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Dysklyver 08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep sometimes, it is best to pause and ask if we are serving our readers well by deleting articles on well–known products. Lepricavark (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As shown by the above WP:BEFORE source from Google books snippet 8, WP:BEFORE D1 results were not reported in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the lede of WP:N and evidence in the article and available from WP:BEFORE, topic is worthy of notice.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the lede of WP:N and evidence in the article and available from WP:BEFORE, topic is worthy of notice.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 28 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.