Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit

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The result was Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure by me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triscuit[edit]

As far as I can see, this fails WP:N. It has had a prod removed by an anon user. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the article is in terrible shape, but this is a legitimate cracker that has been around for years. Does not fail WP:N. -- MisterHand 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as obviously notable (I've heard of these things and I live in the UK) though the article desperately needs a cleanup. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --ROASTYTOAST 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - definitely sourcable - clean it up! --Haemo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My apologies...they haven't made it to Australia, hence my not knowing of them. This AfD may be closed now. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.