Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choco Leibniz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, but since there is some interest in merging I will add the merge tags. Yomanganitalk 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choco Leibniz

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [1]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. In the UK, I've never heard of it or the company, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Bahlsen (which most assuredly meets WP:CORP). A very common biscuit brand here in Belgium, never mind in Germany, but I'm not sure that there's that much more to say about it, which is why merging may be reasonable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delicious! Grindingteeth 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bahlsen. Its one of their most famous prodoucts, but I don't know that it needs its own article. Ok, then write an article for Bahlsen too. And send me some stollen (I especially like the kind with marzipan) and Hit! biscuits, I can't get them here. :) pschemp | talk 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have merged content to Bahlsen. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a perfectly valid stub. Turnstep 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, perfectly valid stub. RFerreira 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- yes, it is a stub, but what else are you going to write about it? How about trying to expand it if you think it can be an article. Personally, I think there is not enough information out there for it to ever be more than a stub. Also, Bahlsen (a perfectly valid stub unlike this) could really use the information. Someone find me one independent reference that is doing more than selling the biscuits and has enough to write an actual article please. I'm sorry, but if you can't expand it, it needs to be merged. pschemp | talk 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, no evidence of the productes notability. --Peta 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The apt words of user:Postdlf apply here too if you change Keebler to Bahlsen. "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 (make that Bahlsen) 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)" Thanks, pschemp | talk 03:42, 18 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.