Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triscuit

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

Fails WP:GNG despite editors being affected by its ad campaign. Dysklyver 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 21:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

despite editors being affected by its ad campaign Uh, can you clarify this vague assumption of bad faith? Are you suggesting an undisclosed COI? If so, which editors do you suggest are involved? Additionally, can you clarify your WP:BEFORE search? Because I've spent about five minutes looking and found several books. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um this?... "I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 8:21 pm, 13 May 2007, Sunday (10 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−4)" perhaps you disagree but subconscious inluence does not equal bad faith, I am not accusing anyone of bad faith. Dysklyver 10:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Argument "fails GNG" weightless in the absence of a BEFORE search. I searched for about five minutes and have already found lots of interesting sources: Utopian Images and Narratives in Advertising: Dreams for Sale, UnMarketing: Stop Marketing. Start Engaging, The Blueprint for Strategic Advertising (all re: the marketing of Triscuits), Niagara Falls (history of Triscuits), Food: A Love Story (memoir by notable comic Jim Gaffigan discussing devotion to eating Triscuits). I bet I could find more but I've made my point for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An option is to merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in a wide variety of extensive secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly appears to meet GNG based on sourcing, and arguments already mentioned.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep need to more expanding though revise by unanimous of reviewers and editorsDave linc (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep plenty of coverage, as demonstrated above. While I don't think these are particularly tasty, that has no impact on notability. Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anybody actually likes eating Triscuits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:14, 12 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.