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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos (snack food) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable brand. Dysklyver 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per the article and its reliable source on the matter, the cookies are very controversial. This is guaranteed to generate more reliable sources about the controversial product. On top of this, the company produces the product "Mini Filipinos" which is a smaller loose packet of four biscuits. The name "Mini Filipinos" is almost guaranteed to provoke the ire of Filipinos (they only worse name for this product would be "short Filipinos"). The Wikipedia article also states: "In Spain, Portugal and the Nordic countries they are produced and sold under the Artiach brand name. Under license to United Biscuits, in the Netherlands they are sold and produced locally under the Verkade brand." Given that many Filipinos migrate and work overseas, this is almost guaranteed to further stoke the fire of controversy and generate more stories and perhaps in multiple countries. The Wikipedia article also states: "The government of the Philippines filed a diplomatic protest with the government of Spain, the European Commission and the then manufacturer Nabisco Iberia in 1999. The protest objected to the use of the name "Filipinos", a term which can refer to the people of the Philippines, to market cookie and pretzel snacks and demanded that Nabisco stop selling the product until the brand name was changed." Government to government friction over an offensively named food product name is something very noteworthy about a product and successive politicians will bring this matter up as it probably will get them more votes given that nationalism and national pride is a common vote getting tactic. This will create more reliable sources for the article. The Wikipedia article further states: "The resolution's author, the Philippine Congressman Heherson Alvarez, claimed that the name of the cookie was offensive due to the apparent reference to their color, "dark outside and white inside". His resolution stated "These food items could be appropriately called by any other label, but the manufacturers have chosen our racial identity, and they are now making money out of these food items." On August 26, 1999, the Philippine president Joseph Estrada called the brand "an insult"." Now we are getting into racial politics which tends to be an intense form of politics and generate a lot of press. The cookies are going to continue to generate reliable sources and be newsworthy. Knox490 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have searched again along the lines you suggest, I found [1], unfortunately "Mini Filipinos" reveals no reliable sources, a Gnews search only 2 results, neither of which are relevant. The newsworthiness doesn't seem to have materialized into much actual news. Dysklyver 08:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This internationally-marketed product has gotten and continues to get news attention, e.g. [2][3][4][5][6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This product does have some sources talking about how offensive its name is. I don't think its enough to meet WP:GNG. nom Dysklyver 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Filipinas. Filipinas Pub. 2005. Indeed, few Filipinos who visit Spain resist bringing the snack back to these shores.
• Keep or Speedy Keep  Product itself is international within Europe, even if not known in English-speaking countries.  In addition, the international involvement of the Philippines attracts attention.  As per the nutshell of WP:N, notability is the evidence of attention to a topic by the world at large.  Nomination made a notability argument without addressing WP:ATD, which is not a deletion argument, so fails WP:SK#1.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry to burst your bubble.

1. This brand is not sold in Europe - similar biscuits are, under a different brand, which is not within the scope of this article about a brand. For the article about these biscuits in Europe, see Verkade. This article is about the biscuits sold in the USA.

2. Speedy keep votes are procedurally possible only during the initial 7 days of an AfD, as after that point the initial discussion period has already happened and a close cannot be 'speedy'. This has been relisted twice. (see WP:SK for details).

3. I would suggest you read more of WP:N than just the nutshell, you are entitled to your opinion, but notability is actually related to sourceablity, read down to WP:WHYN for useful explanation.

4. per WP:ATD, articles with insufficient available sources to show notability may be deleted without explicit reference to said policy. The presence of an article at AfD is an obvious indication the nomination is seeking deletion.

5. you refer to WP:SK#1, however I have not withdrawn the nomination, so it is unclear whether you are trying to cite something relevant here.

Dysklyver 14:52, 28 October 2017 (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.