Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timbits

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 of the debate was KEEP. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timbits

This topic is not significant enough for an encyclopedia article. It is a trademarked name for a common fast-food menu item.

• Delete or Merge relevant info into Doughnut. --Robby 15:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A pretty major piece of Canadian culture, 47,000 Google hits, and a fairly decent article. - SimonP 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to vote keep. This item has a prominent place in Canadian culture, sad as that sounds ... CJCurrie 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Canadian institution. Have helped keep me awake in numerous tedious all-day-meetings. Luigizanasi 20:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the aforementioned reasons. Adam Bishop 20:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sadly, Simon, CJ and Luigi are correct: Timbits do have a prominent place in Canadian "culture". Ground Zero | t 20:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable food item.--Shanel 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. That's like saying that we should merge Big Mac into Hamburger. Hell, even the Google Blog linked to it :) Ral315 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per SimonP, CJCurrie, Luigizanasi, Ral315—Gniw (Wing) 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid discourse on variance in international gastronomic terminology, disruptive to an overwhelming American bias,never heard of timbits before.." -nvt
• keep, Ral315 said it best. getcrunk juice 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI don't even know why people are worried about whether the copyright is being infringed. The article is harmless. Good photo by the way.
• Keep They aren't doughnuts, everyone in Canada knows of them.
• Keep. I learn something on Wikipedia every day. Jacqui ^{★ 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Tim Hortons has such a central place in Canadian culture that "Timbits" has become the generic term for these in Canada no matter what doughnut chain they're actually purchased from. Have to vote keep here. Bearcat 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep. DS 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But change this statement, "sold at the Canadian Tim Hortons restaurant chain." TH was bought by Americans a long time ago. They are owned by Wendy's now. --maclean25 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a semantic issue more than anything else; the chain is American-owned, but more than 90 per cent of its franchise locations are still in Canada. "Canadian chain" can legitimately refer to either ownership or where the actual stores are located. Bearcat 07:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it is an issue of semantics. The opening paragraph, especially the first sentence, needs to be absolutely clear and precise. It should not be open for interpretation. It should mean exactly what it says and say exactly what it wants to mean. It says "sold at the Canadian Tim Hortons"...so it isn't sold at American locations? or is the company Canadian? --maclean25 05:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Romeo Bravo ^=/\= 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Just because it's trademarked doesn't mean it isn't a Canadian pop culture icon. If Americans can have apple pie, then we can have timbits. Skeezix1000 16:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons stated above. --TCM (Talk) 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of similar types of entries. Let Canada keep what culture it has :) --Aaron Lees 08:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because they are an institution. Carolynparrishfan 13:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the few elements of Canadian culture - Tim Hortons and Timbits come right behind hockey. Plus, they're not doughnuts.

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.