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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy Tom (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)

Advertising orphan for cat food that seems to fail GNG as it lacks any significant coverage and it uses all kinds of promotional terms such as "As of 2004, it was the number two brand" and "ran a long-term promotion". I looked up the only listed source, and did a search for "Snappy Tom" ( http://www.petproductnews.com/search.aspx?q=Snappy%20Tom ) and all three results that came up say "Safcol Petcare's Snappy Tom Cat Litter" so it's not even cat food which makes this made up. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Delete in the absence of references to prove the key statement, of being the number 2 brand in the country. If that can be documented, then I would keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No long-term significance for a completely unremarkable product. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My immediate reaction was delete, as it is hard to find genuine coverage on what is just a standard cat food, but I notice the last vote was massively to keep. Have standards changed that much in the last 8 years?Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summer 2007 probably is the end of the beginning, so yes, that doesn't look crazy there, but would've looked crazy a year later. WP:N was only proposed in the fall of 2006, about when Wikipedia:Non-notability ended up being rejected. I mean, I assume someone who knew how to find sources about the cat food industry could easily whip together something - but that person ain't I. WilyD 09:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (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.