Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penguin biscuit

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin biscuit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I recreated this article during its brief hiatus, since it was redlinked from the equally notable (and recently kept) Tim Tams. It is apparently an iconic snack food of the seventies. Yomangani^talk 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - well known, almost a proprietory brand name, at least in the UK. — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Blatantly notable. the wub "?!" 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - Yet another biscuit article. By the way Tivedshambo, Penquin IS a proprietary brand name in the UK. Emeraude 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Emeraude, I don't know if you are familiar with the background to this, but the reason there are so many biscuit articles on AfD today is because they were all speedy deleted as a group by user:Improv a couple of days ago, they were brought to deletion review as a group, and so the overturning of the speedy deletion was for all of them as well (see link in nomination statement). Per process, I had to list all of them on AfD, hence the large number of them. As for why biscuits and not any other type of product, I don't know. Thryduulf 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. In no way a speedy deletion candidate. --Canley 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, are you kidding? I can't comment on most of the biscuits handled in that particular batch of articles, but P-p-p-p-penguins are a major brand and .. I'd go as far as saying they're a slice of history (and bloody tasty too). QuagmireDog 23:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Random quote: "A Penguin biscuit (the towering treat of the Seventies)" from this article [2] (The Guardian Unlimited). There are stacks of them. What about this one? [3], apparently it's published in 'Marketing magazine' (!?) and gives some sales figures (that site is a solicitor's site, with the material taken from that mag). There is stacks of material available. QuagmireDog 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The first example you gave is already in the article under "Further reading". Yomangani^talk 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough, here's more on the Puffin/Penguin lawsuit between Penguin's manufacturer and the supermarket chain Asda [4], direct from the Marketing magazine website. There's 49 results on 'penguin biscuit' on that site alone [5]. QuagmireDog 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - apparant article log anomaly. The article log shows the deletion, but not the restoration. Carcharoth 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned in the first "Keep" comment, I recreated the article while it was deleted (added some references and de-"spammed" it), so it wasn't necessary to restore it. Yomangani^talk 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've now restored the page history, so someone may want to merge information from the old version into the current one. Thryduulf 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - pick up this Penguin. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 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.