Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snappy Tom

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. John254 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy Tom

This article has remained a one-line stub since creation and there doesn't appear to be much room for expansion on the topic. Longhair\^talk 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact its a one-liner matters little. One or two WP:RS on a quick google search. Could be made into a solid stub like Whiskas Cat Food. Twenty Years 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Whiskas article doesn't have any reliable secondary sources at all. -- Longhair\^talk 09:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a couple of semi-reliable sources, but to be frank I don't think this article passes muster on notability grounds. Recurring dreams 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Twenty Years. It may not have much information, but what's there is relevant. That's the point of stubs.--Yeti Hunter 10:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The rationale given for deletion is... not a very good rationale. Lankiveil 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major cat food brand in Australia. Googlers beware: there's both a tomato juice drink and a racehorse with the same name, so many hits are unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notable brand of cat food. It's a stub, yes, but that's hardly a valid reason to delete it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. If I had a cat it would eat this ;) Giggy _U^CP 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting new argument: not just MYCATLIKESIT but myhpotheticalcatwouldlikeit. If it's that good, get some references in. people write in newspapers about pets, and pet food. DGG (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OMG! I love it :) I can just see the essay now. Orderinchaos 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable brand of catfood in Australia. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the Wikipedians of Australia have made their choice: Notable, No-ta-ble. All the Wikipedians, they're all of one voice: notable, no-ta-ble. JRG 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is a work in progress and this can be expanded.John Vandenberg 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability weakly indicated by secondary source at the National Library of Australia's Picture Australia [1] who have the unlikely subject field "Snappy Tom (cat food)" which contains two pictures dating back to 1980.(and as JRG has alluded to, it has an annoyingly memorable jingle :) ) Melburnian 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are we relying on obscure pictures from the National Library to prove the notability of one of the more well-known brands in the country? This is insane. Rebecca 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it's well-known...but I'm having a darn hard time proving it :) Melburnian 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the number two brand in Australia in it's market. But DGG, I don't think letters to the editor meet WP:RS. If only all stubs were so well referenced: 1 sentence claiming anything worthwhile, 1 reference.Ga rr ie 22:24, 15 July 2007 (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.