Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese Nips

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. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Nips

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~fails WP:GNG, non-notable brand.~~ Dysklyver 20:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) HEY 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheese cracker. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced there's any reason to merge this with Cheese cracker .... it doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many good sources readily available as anybody can find. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: – 5 point test:

Significant coverage? N I've looked through all 11 pages and cannot see any significant coverage.
Reliable source? Y Can see the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune. There's probably more.
Multiple sources? Y Definitely.
Secondary sources? Y Some are.
Non-local sources? Y Some are.

However, just the one fail is still enough to not meet the general notability guideline. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please post two links that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. You have posted a link to Google Search but this does not qualify for the purposes of establishing notability. You have mentioned the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribute but you have not posted links to any references. This Houston Chronicle reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this Chicago Tribune reference is also a mere mention-in-passing (of the product, not the manufacturer) and likewise fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Please read my comment carefully. I'm on your side! J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a relevant brand of cheese crackers. Aleccat 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: relevant does not mean notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalogue of brand names. Dysklyver 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that and all, but there are sources in this discussion. Stub the article and expand it. Do not be a deletionist. --Aleccat 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG: idiotic branding leads to bomb scare, review of new flavors, trade magazine discussion of Cheese Nips' popularity, more review of new flavors, product launch in Middle East, Goldfish crackers vs Cheese Nips lawsuit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: well that's a lot better, propose close re WP:HEY. Dysklyver 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This brand is definitely notable and is probably the best known competitor to Cheez-It. (Either way, I oppose "merge into Cheese cracker" since merging a brand into that page makes no sense. The only viable option I can see in lieu of deletion or keeping is "redirect to List of Kraft brands#Mondelez International".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't seem to me that anyone is looking at the references that people keep pointing at. Mostly they are passing references; the rest are uniformly "Cheese Nips are Kraft's version of Cheese-Its." Being able to find them on a store shelf somewhere isn't notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the sources provided may not devote much space to discussing these bad tasting Cheez–It knockoffs, I will contend that the sources argue for the notability of this product by treating it like something the reader already knows about. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Kraft_brands#Mondelez_International. There's nothing in the current article worth preserving. It's 100% promo despite being a WP:DIRECTORY listing, thus doubly excluded per WP:NOT. Redirect is the best option in this case. Someone wants to develop it down the road? Fine! But since it ended up at AfD, the redirect is the best approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing found by PMC above, which is enough to satisfy our inclusion requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statista reports that in 2016, 1.5 million Americans consumed eight or more bags of Cheeze Nips. Since Wikipedia notability is a measure of attention to a topic by the world-at-large, this statistic alone is sufficient as evidence of Wikipedia notability. The counter-hypothesis would be that these 1.5 million Americans bought these crackers without knowing what they were buying. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, perhaps you should go and read WP:WHYN, and then read the notability policies again as you clearly don't understand them, your definition of notability is actually stated as what it is not! notability is nothing to do with something being famous, it is entirely to do with the presence of multiple reliable independent sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Dysklyver 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not part of the guideline proper. If you look in the WP:N history, I think you will see that it was rejected ten years ago. There is no such thing as "notability policy", unless you mean WP:V#Notability. The place to start in reading WP:N is the lede and the nutshell, which is what supports my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell the relevant people how a large section of the current WP:N guideline was rejected 10 years ago, it is still marked as a current guideline on the main notability ~~policy~~ Guideline page. Neither the lede or the nutshell are part of the guideline either, but you are supposed to use these things to interpret it. Dysklyver 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, so let's move on. As for the lede and nutshell of WP:N, they are what they are, and they are not there to interpret GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands now, the sources in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.