Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam

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. -- Longhair\^talk 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Tam

This was previously speedy deleted with the explanation "CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group," but I restored it because I don't think it's that clear cut a case. No vote for now. Postdlf 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its a notable product with a rich history. It could however be re-written and possibly expanded. Tarret 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, internationally-available product. If anything, Tim Tam Slam is a far better candidate for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sources for its notability obvious from a quick google. (G11 getting off to a good start - it isn't even written like an advert). Yomangani^talk 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and not just because they are so tasty and delicious. The product is well-known, even outside Australia, and is just as encyclopedic as oreo. (Now I need a snack...) Agent 86 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly deletion, as a few seconds on google would have found. Natgoo 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is Australia's most popular snack food/chocolate in terms of worldwide recognition, total sales and revenue. This is definately a notable enough subject. Witty lama 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Natgoo 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I was concerned when I read about CSD G11 that it may be misused to delete well-written, notable, encyclopedic articles on brand names or companies as "purely promotional". What next, Vegemite? Thanks for the restore and bringing it to AfD, Postdlf. --Canley 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• This article has no sources but for the parent companies home page. *munch munch* I fully support the clean-up of advertising. *slurp slurp* This is probably best merged to the parent company. *does proverbial slam* I would have preferred that this be handled less expeditiously, both in the deletion and the restoration. *blissful smile as melted-choc-goodness hits mouth* - brenneman ^{L} 01:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, the Tim Tam Slam article does have sources (of sorts). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You were there at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea-sucking when I did a complete rewrite from sources, remember? Uncle G 02:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ohh, yeah. Those were the days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost everyone in Australia knows of Tim Tams. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very wellknown product in Australia. I too am very concerned about CSD G11 and its potential for abuse. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 5 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.