Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipsticks

:{{la|Chipsticks}} ([{{fullurl:Chipsticks|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipsticks}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Declining db-spam and taking to AfD; I think consensus is that this isn't what db-spam is for, but let me know if I'm wrong. None of the first 50 ghits strike me as reliable. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Purely in terms of the topic, not this incarnation of the article... I'm a little bemused that we consider crisp brands notable, but a quick flick through the category suggests we do - Frazzles, Hula Hoops, Salt 'n' Shake. I think my brain will try and dribble out of my ears if I do a relative study of their notability, though I suppose Frazzles & Chipsticks occupy the same "starchy, crumbly & artificial" niche... Shimgray | talk | 02:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's the same criterion as everywhere else: In-depth coverage by multiple independent sources that are by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Bear in mind that, even though some people create articles on an "If article X then article Y." basis, the existence of an article neither indicates that other subjects are automatically notable or that a category of subjects is automatically notable, and "If article X then article Y." is a long-debunked and fallacious argument. Notability is not a blanket.

  Are Hula Hoops notable? Yes, because multiple instances of in-depth reliable coverage can be found (such as pages 72–73 of ISBN 9781592530069, for starters, which goes into such details as the name of the person who designed the packaging for the re-branding as "Shocks") and there are other sources that add further non-directory information (such as ISBN 9780748760848, which states how much money was spent on "Hoopy McHula").

  The question of whether Chipsticks is notable is answered in the same way: by determining whether multiple such independent in-depth reliable sources exist. We don't look for blankets. We look for sources.

  Sometimes one will be bemused. But it's bemusement as to the unexpected subjects that turn out to be extensively studied and documented in sources by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've been reading deletion discussions for the same many years you have, don't worry, I know how we do this :-)

  I was not making a "long-debunked and fallacious argument" to argue the topic was notable; rather, I wanted to provide some context for someone who might find it useful it in order to reach an opinion. Logic dictates that if one brand of [horrific-tasting British maize-based snackfood sold in small bags to children] is found notable, another one is probably likely to be found in the same sources, discussed in the same way, and so looking at the comparable material is a good point to begin. Shimgray | talk | 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't think that you were making it. I was pointing out that the people who created this article, or other articles, might have employed it, which is why those other articles aren't really relevant here except as examples of how unexpected things like Hula Hoops can be found documented in sources (with information that our article, sadly, lacks, moreover). Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Either Keep or Merge to either The Smith's Snackfood Company or Walkers (it's a bit vague as to which one counts as the parent company). Chipsticks are sufficiently widespread in the UK to warrant a mention somewhere (but not details of nutritional information). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Smith's did not invent these things. I'd note that we don't currently have an article about what are called in the U.S. "potato sticks" and in the U.K. "chipsticks", though they are mentioned in Potato chip # similar foods. An article would be welcome-- for anyone who has ever tried these uber-greasy sticks, it is well known that they are not at all similar to potato chips, and most definitely are not a food. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• There's a problem. See below. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to The Smith's Snackfood Company. Warrants its own article only if there's more to say than this one unreferenced paragraph. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• There's a problem. First of all, there appear to be several names out there. Products named "chipsticks" appear to have been sold, at one point in time, by The Smith's Snackfood Company, Walkers, KP Snacks, and Tayto. But there aren't enough sources, and the sources that mention these names don't go into anywhere near sufficient depth, to clear up the confusion as to whether this is one subject or many. Second, these products aren't necessarily made from potato. Several shopping catalogues carefully describe them as "Maize and Potato Snacks", for example. The Chipsticks sold by Awafi Foodstuff Industries Co. L.L.C. in the United Arab Emirates are "Extruded Corn Snacks", for another example.

  It's really not clear that there's a single "Chipsticks" subject here, that these products are all necessarily the same, or that there's a single redirect target to be had. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (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.