Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby Snacks

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 merge‎ to Scooby-Doo. Star Mississippi 19:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Snacks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find anything in-depth, 1 is the best source I could find. There were one or two sources about the name being used in the drug scene that could be given a sentence in the pop culture section of the main article. 2 (better source needed - no author information or related policies given) 3 QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, Television, and Comics and animation. QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scooby Snacks are not only an iconic part of the show but also part of a lot of merchandise. There is an article in the NZ Herald about "Scooby Snacks" accidentally being fed to children.[1] which was also reported on by the BBC.[2] There is also an article by the Daily Express about Scooby Snacks merchandise in B&M.[3] There is an article in The Sun about Scooby Snacks.[4] and an article about a copyright dispute involving the snacks.[5]

"Scooby snacks" is also used as a term outside of the show and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary[6] and was covered here.[7][8] The term is also used to refer to drugs, likely originating from the show.[9][10][11] The term was mentioned in the following paper.[12]

Here are some other sources which mention Scooby Snacks[13][14][15] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources I found with mention of Scooby Snacks: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

There is also this article which I cannot find the full version, if I can find it, I might post it here. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scooby-Doo as a new section under merchandising. This section can include the mishaps with the dog treats. The other sources are mere WP:ROUTINE mentions. If a source exists of the snacks being illustriously detailed about their comparison to drugs, please ping me and I'll reconsider my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scooby-Doo, possibly in its own section. None of the sources appear to actually be substantial, or are talking about a real-life product (as opposed to the fictional snack this article is about). I am simply not seeing the standalone notability of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scooby-Doo as indicated above, Bduke (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article talks about the term and could easily talk about the real-life product (including the reliable, independent coverage). The question is if the topic is notable, not if the article is. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per above. Most of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and not enough for WP:SIGCOV. This is a small tangent about Scooby-Doo and can be mentioned at a parent article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources provided by GoldenBootWizard276 are enough to get over WP:N. plus OED has an entry and WP:DICDEF isn't an issue. [31] is an academic publication that discusses these. I don't really see any way this doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some sources are definitely trivial mentions, there are some of them do discuss the snacks at large as a form of commentary and outside coverage of them is obviously present. The academic sources listed alone make this article worth keeping as per WP:ACADEMIC and deleting it just because of the wonky sourcing at the moment directly conflicts with WP:DINC. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That academic article, fwiw, uses Scooby Doo’s famous devotion to his treats as a playful hook to introduce a legal argument about federal regulation of dog food - I’m not sure that it constitutes significant coverage of Scooby snacks for WP purposes.
Llajwa (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llajwa: I'm honestly confused by which reference you're referring to as there's various academic articles referenced as some of the links remain inaccessible for me. Regardless, let's use Reference 23 as an example of significant coverage. Scooby Snacks or at least some real-life variation are mentioned around 76 times across the article to demonstrate a greater point on the marketing of fictional characters within merchandise and other products. Notability isn't demonstrated by just reliable sources talking about the subject at large but also mentioning significance from topics that are outside of the original series' scope while also displaying secondary coverage. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scooby-Doo per above. The vast majority of the multitude of links above are just a bunch of google hits, many of them being from unreliable sources, and many of them being the most trivial of mentions of the term (with some not even mentioning it at all that I can find). Looking through them to find the actual reliable sources, there still is not that extensive enough coverage that an independent page could really be supported, and per WP:NOPAGE, this would be better covered on the broader topic of the franchise for the greater amount of context covering that way would provide. All that can really be said, using the reliable sources here, are that they are a reoccurring plot device in the franchise, that there have been some real-life tie-in products named after them, and it has been used as slang for other things outside of the franchise. This is something that can easily be covered in a few sentences on the main article without the need for a split out article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes GNG I feel.★Trekker (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:34, 31 January 2024 (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.