Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chips Ahoy!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. — CharlotteWebb 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chips Ahoy!
A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious keep as a well-known, popular cookie brand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a well-known brand, more information about it would be nice, but Nabisco is hardly going to need Wikipedia for advertisement. Mister.Manticore 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but expand per Badlydrawnjeff and Manticore. --Aaron 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. Emeraude 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, very well-known US cookie brand. NawlinWiki 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, to answer Emeraude, this brand is sold throughout the US, can be found in every supermarket (and most smaller groceries as well) and is advertised on nationwide TV and in nationwide magazines. One of the top-selling cookies in the US. So it's not just some minor brand operating out of some grandma's kitchen. Andrew Levine 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then why do neither the article nor this discussion cite any sources? Please remember that you need to demonstrate notability to readers in countries outside the United States. "It's notable because we've all heard of it." isn't a valid pile-on argument for discussion forum members defending their discussion forum, and it isn't a valid argument for North American editors defending a North American biscuit brand. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd go with [2]'s statement about it being the largest seller in the US as enough. Probably also checkable in trade magazines or Kraft's corporate reports if you want. Mister.Manticore 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article wants. Wikipedia wants. Uncle G 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't cite any sources because nobody's added them yet. Give me half an hour and I will find you a half-dozen citations of the brand from business and advertising journals. Try and tone down the patronizing attitude, and remember that you are talking to a fellow administrator who has been here since 2003, not a newcomer who needs to be lectured on citation. The issue here is one of time. I voice my support and reasoning first and then find the citations when my life leaves me a little more free time. Andrew Levine 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's no patronizing. But there is a double standard which should not be being employed. Moreover: If you are "voicing your support" then you are voting, just as the discussion forum members who come to AFD to voice their support for their pet discussion fora vote. AFD is not a vote. You have days to contribute to the discussion. You don't have to "vote immediately and often". Sources help the encyclopaedia far more than votes. Uncle G 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- By assuming that an experienced user is unfamiliar with basic processes, and explaining them as if to a novice, you continue to take a patronizing attitude, and it's not helping. Saying "Keep, because (multitude of reasons)" is not a simple "keep vote," it's a contribution to a discussion, and I have seen too many AfDs incorrectly closed as speedy to say that getting opposition in first and then providing the references is wrong. I can't do a more thorough search right now, but in 1998, Chips Ahoy! was the third-top-selling cookie line in the U.S., with $184.4 million in sales (Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, June 1999). Andrew Levine 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, there's no patronizing, but you are getting it wrong, as exemplified below. Furthermore, your concerns about this discussion being "incorrectly closed as speedy" clearly have no foundation. Read the nomination and see how we got here in the first place. Uncle G 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Where did I say that this article was incorrectly closed as speedy? Nowhere. Andrew Levine 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, there's no patronizing, but you are getting it wrong, as exemplified below. Furthermore, your concerns about this discussion being "incorrectly closed as speedy" clearly have no foundation. Read the nomination and see how we got here in the first place. Uncle G 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this offends, but I too find your responses across this subject to be a bit patronizing as well myself. You may not be intending to offend, but your tone just comes across as more irritating and dogmatic than genuinely concerned with improving articles. Mister.Manticore 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just so everybody knows, I'm talking about Uncle G here. Mister.Manticore 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies, I just don't think Uncle G's standard is fair. Anyway, here is a 2004 report that gives Chips Ahoy!'s annual sales at $355 million. here. In a few minutes I will incorporate this into the article. Andrew Levine 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, no, I was unclear. I agree with your impression about Uncle G's statements as being patronizing. Sorry for not being clear. Mister.Manticore 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I also want to state that bringing the need for references to an AfD discussion is of questionable relevance, since we do not deleted articles solely on the basis of being unreferenced. Andrew Levine 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is where you are getting it wrong. Citing sources is very much a part of AFD discussions (not least because it is what we are supposed to be doing here in Wikipedia) because it is the way to demonstrate unequivocally that notability criteria are satisfied. "It's notable because it's famous." is a worthless rationale. Fame isn't a criterion for deletion or inclusion, and a Wikipedia editor simply asserting that something is famous doesn't demonstrate it. "It's notable because this source, this source, this source, and this source demonstrate that the notability criterion is satisfied." is a good rationale. Citing sources in support of arguments is the way to make arguments, and that applies here as much as it does anywhere else. Uncle G 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I also want to state that bringing the need for references to an AfD discussion is of questionable relevance, since we do not deleted articles solely on the basis of being unreferenced. Andrew Levine 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just so everybody knows, I'm talking about Uncle G here. Mister.Manticore 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- By assuming that an experienced user is unfamiliar with basic processes, and explaining them as if to a novice, you continue to take a patronizing attitude, and it's not helping. Saying "Keep, because (multitude of reasons)" is not a simple "keep vote," it's a contribution to a discussion, and I have seen too many AfDs incorrectly closed as speedy to say that getting opposition in first and then providing the references is wrong. I can't do a more thorough search right now, but in 1998, Chips Ahoy! was the third-top-selling cookie line in the U.S., with $184.4 million in sales (Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, June 1999). Andrew Levine 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's no patronizing. But there is a double standard which should not be being employed. Moreover: If you are "voicing your support" then you are voting, just as the discussion forum members who come to AFD to voice their support for their pet discussion fora vote. AFD is not a vote. You have days to contribute to the discussion. You don't have to "vote immediately and often". Sources help the encyclopaedia far more than votes. Uncle G 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd go with [2]'s statement about it being the largest seller in the US as enough. Probably also checkable in trade magazines or Kraft's corporate reports if you want. Mister.Manticore 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then why do neither the article nor this discussion cite any sources? Please remember that you need to demonstrate notability to readers in countries outside the United States. "It's notable because we've all heard of it." isn't a valid pile-on argument for discussion forum members defending their discussion forum, and it isn't a valid argument for North American editors defending a North American biscuit brand. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep They may not be Oreos, but it is definitely one of the most well-known and best-selling cookie brands in North America. Kirjtc2 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and recognizable brand worldwide.--Húsönd 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Badlydrawnjeff and Andrew Levine. Agent 86 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - definitely worth an article. Could use some citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Find some citations and get on with it. RFerreira 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Well played with the source, Andrew Levine. But point well taken, Uncle G. At ease, soldiers! JubalHarshaw 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Speedy deletion under G11 is showing itself to be a very bad idea. Nearly 7,000 Google News returns for this. This brand was sold in Australia and is clearly a notable snack. [3]
- keep please chips ahoy are very notable as a cookie brand Yuckfoo 07:34, 11 October 2006 (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.
