Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic middles

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 Redirect to Keebler. No evidence of notability provided. Yomangani^talk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic middles

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a well-known Keebler product. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you should easily be able to make a proper argument, citing sources, demonstrating that this product satisfies the WP:CORP criteria for products. Uncle G 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect without merging to whatever article has a list of Keebler products. Product descriptions alone are inadequate to justify its independent existence. Postdlf 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't leave boilerplate votes; this is the exact same text you've left in several other AFDs. Postdlf 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That should not be an issue; it is perfectly valid to use the same rationale to keep for more than one article, espeically when they were added en masse and share similar qualities. Turnstep 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have no opinion of most of these articles, but this one is not at all notable. It can function as a redirect as suggested above but I find no evidence that it merits an article. GassyGuy 05:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless stub that needs expansion, not deletion. Turnstep 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least indicate how expansion might demonstrate the notability of this particular cookie? Keebler is certainly notable, but does that mean it confers notability to every product it puts out? GassyGuy 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of whether this cookie is notable, because it's encompassed by an undisputedly notable topic. I think the better way to look at it is how substantial is it as an independent topic, such that it isn't enough just to mention it in a list of Keebler products. Is it expandable in a nontrivial way? George W. Bush is notable, yet George W. Bush in December, 1978 does not merit a separate article, nor does Hairstyles of George W. Bush (I will nevertheless be in awe if anyone makes a genuinely encyclopedic attempt at such an article). Postdlf 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into new article as per Postdlf -Ryanbomber 15:44, 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.