Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snuggle

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 of the debate was Keep Naconkantari 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggle

A single line on a fabric softner. I cannot see how this product is notable enough to be an encylopedia article Mark S (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Yeah, the article is very short and almost an advertisement. But it's a nationally-advertised product with a well-known mascot. "Snuggle"+"fabric softener" gets 35,000 total and 700 unique Google hits, which is more than the great majority of things with their own articles. -- Kicking222 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Extremely well-known consumer product, and the "Snuggle bear" is a popular advertising icon. I get 362,000 Google hits for Snuggle +fabric, and a further 262,000 for Kuschelweich. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Over here in England we don't have it, so we will never have heard of it (hence the AFD). A product like this will get a lot of google hits (because lots of places sell it) but does that make it something worthy of an encylopedia article? --MarkS (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is copious secondary source material on a subject, then it a legitimate topic for an encyclopaedia article. If, in future, you apply the WP:CORP criteria when making deletion nominations for products, instead of the "I have never heard of it" criterion, you will be more likely not to go astray. The question that you should be asking and answering is whether any of those Google Web search results are anything more than company press releases or mentions in product catalogues. Uncle G 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not having heard of something is an appalling reason to nominate it for VfD. For example, if I look at Category:Nobel Prize in Physics winners, I only see maybe four or five names I recognise out of hundreds. Yet all are obviously notable and none should be deleted or AfDed. At the very least, it couldn't hurt to check with someone who lives where the product is sold to determine if it's a household name or not. Besides that, it is sold in the UK, just under a different name (Comfort). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
    - Not having heard of it was NOT part of the reason for nomination. It was part of my reponse to a response. A search for "Snuggle" on my version of Google (UK) reveals nothing on the first three pages. A search for "snuggle fabric softener" does bring up 37,000 hits. However, the first hit is nothing to do with the product, some of the next hits are Snuggle but not all. Furthermore, the the responses are for amazon or grocers rather than the an article about the product itself. On these criteria it is not getting that many google hits and more importantly it is not getting articles about the products (the hits are "sales" pages rather than "articles about" pages). On my research it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP and so I nomintated it as a candidate for deletion. The problem here is that the product is US rather than worldwide. So when a non-US editor searches for it, it doesn't show up. The only way to guard against this is to search all local version of google when checking any article. In this case the product is obviously widely distributed in the US (altough this doesn't meet WP:CORP) - if it was described as a US product then I wouldn't have touched it in the first place. I guess the best solution is that products should be labelled with their relevant geographic region so that editors familar with that region can decide on the way forward. --Mark S (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely distributed household products household products are certainly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wickethewok 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets google news hits, widely known brand - et cetera WilyD 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly prevalent brand in the U.S. It's as worthy of keeping as products sold elsewhere in the world and not available in the U.S. (like Marmite for example... and as a side note, I think the Snuggle would probably taste better on toast).--Isotope23 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, well-known product. NawlinWiki 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, definitely a well-known product. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Danny Lilithborne 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a speedy candidate. I'm shocked it was only one line at the start of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently all the effort went into the Snuggle bear article instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just went ahead and boldly merged Snuggle bear to Snuggle... both articles were short, had somewhat redundant information, but had enough differences that it just made sense to combine them and leave a redirect at Snuggle bear. Article looks more complete now.--Isotope23 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks better now. - CNichols 01:31, 4 July 2006 (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.