Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Teddy

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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny Teddy

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News Archive shows results for this brand. [2]Speedy category G11 should be ditched or seriously reconsidered. Capitalistroadster 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ROFL, you are joking right. This article describes a biscuit second only in distribution to Tim Tam's IMO. What on earth was this doing getting speedy deleted??? Ansell 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Super strong keep - most definitely notable brand. (JROBBO 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
• Keep, these speedy deletes are getting progressively more ridiculous. This is a very well-known brand of biscuit in Australia. What next, "Gough Whitlam" as a 'nn politician'? Lankiveil 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Whitlam... Whose y'all talkin' 'bout now? NN, never heard of the guy. :) (Thats the type of absurdity I figure has happened). Cheers, Ansell 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge with The Whitlams Andjam 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Come on and have dinner with me, we'll play chess and drink claret... Natgoo 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in the strongest possible terms - recognised biscuit of the Arnotts brand. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Topic is notable, article needs a lot of work. Natgoo 10:12, 15 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.