610:) and apparently it is pronounced Toffifee, and decided that my judgment was too clouded at the time to make a level-headed decision. I did say I was only going to AfD Toffifee if this was deleted but if you are suggesting that Toffifee is more likely to end up in delete, are you suggesting that I AfD regardless of the outcome of this?--
207:, which is now being advertised in the UK. At best this is of questionable factual accuracy (their pisspoor excuse of a website refutes the claims that this they are now known as Toffifee and that their offices are in Croydon), at worst this is of very questionable notability. If this ends in delete, I will also be AfDing
52:. It appears the article has undergone some improvements since this AFD was started, and two of the four sources cited do provide sufficient coverage, giving more weight to the 'keep' arguments here. Even if I closed this as "no consensus" the status quo (the article continuing to exist) would remain. ~
633:
I wouldn't say I was "suggesting that".. you .. "AfD regardless of the outcome of this", but I would say it is unrelated and a much stronger case. The only thing that give me pause is it has a surprising number of edits from such a non article! I certianly would not have voted keep on
497:
Even with the added sources, the referencing is trivial and does not show show notability. Rathe the fact that theeare the things talked about in connection with the firm offers a fairly good prove of non-notabillity.
168:
576:- The article needs improvement but it has references, and has been around over 70 years (and I remember them from 30 years ago). I'm surprised the proposer picked on these first, rather than on
256:
121:
162:
408:. Lots of affection for these because they were around when I was a kid. They are still around now! This afd looks a bit like trying to delete mars bars or snickers...
300:
278:
443:
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense; GNG is "has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources". The Daily Mail does not provide additional margin.--
376:
243:
555:
I would oppose merging to Fox's. Notability for these would seem founded on their longevity: yet they've only been part of Fox's for the last decade.
199:
I have been questioning whether this deserved a
Knowledge article for ages - not since reading the article, since buying the product in my local
349:
323:
Pre-war confectionery that has lasted for 75 years. If we have articles on confectionery, this is the sort of product we should be covering.
128:
372:
345:
239:
653:
385:
Those refs now added to the article are substantial, reliable and third party - pretty much ending this afd as a meaningful discussion.
668:
622:
455:
223:
94:
89:
98:
81:
17:
183:
150:
602:
is not a reason for deletion. I was feeling quite irritated at the time that I had spent years pronouncing it Toffif
599:
697:
40:
144:
426:
674:
647:
638:, and probably would vote 'Weak delete' (not that I poke around AfD as much as I probably should) - Cheers
628:
589:
564:
546:
509:
483:
461:
434:
417:
394:
380:
362:
332:
312:
292:
270:
247:
229:
140:
63:
663:
617:
560:
479:
450:
328:
218:
693:
643:
607:
585:
542:
36:
538:
534:
522:
518:
190:
432:
287:
265:
176:
85:
521:
doesn't seem to cover the subject of Paynes
Poppets in any detail beyond having it listed in the
58:
341:
658:
612:
556:
475:
445:
324:
308:
213:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
692:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
639:
581:
360:
156:
471:
429:
413:
390:
530:
526:
282:
260:
77:
69:
505:
53:
304:
580:
which is a much weaker article (less information, less history, younger product).
115:
652:
Good enough for me. Even if it results in a keep, the AfD will almost certainly
353:
467:
409:
386:
525:
section and would benefit from the merger. The alternative is to either keep
200:
340:- There are a lot of tantilising passing mentions in Gbooks as can be seen
635:
577:
500:
208:
204:
428:, despite being the Daily Mail, provides some additional margin. --
686:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
238:- Promotional and without any sources since a long time. --
203:. What clinched checking for me was seeing it linked from
598:
Much worse product, as well, but I don't like nuts and
111:
107:
103:
175:
257:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
371:"Passing mentions"? I've read this somewhere... --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
700:). No further edits should be made to this page.
425:I feel the added sources barely reach GNG, and
301:list of Business-related deletion discussions
189:
8:
299:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:list of England-related deletion discussions
277:Note: This debate has been included in the
255:Note: This debate has been included in the
298:
276:
254:
656:. The encyclopedia benefits either way.--
470:is a reliable source, will you be taking
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
537:. I strongly oppose deletion.
373:Why should I have a User Name?
240:Why should I have a User Name?
1:
675:19:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
648:19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
629:19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
590:19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
565:11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
547:10:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
510:07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
484:21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
462:21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
435:01:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
64:20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
533:—with its history intact—to
418:12:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
395:13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
381:19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
363:10:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
333:08:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
313:01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
293:00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
271:00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
248:22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
230:22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
717:
689:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
466:If you don't think the
529:as is, or to redirect
608:Family Guy: The Movie
535:Fox's Confectionery
519:Fox's Confectionery
344:. Some coverage in
600:WP:I don't like it
654:result in cleanup
315:
295:
273:
62:
708:
691:
673:
671:
666:
661:
627:
625:
620:
615:
474:to AfD as well?
460:
458:
453:
448:
358:
290:
285:
268:
263:
228:
226:
221:
216:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
56:
34:
716:
715:
711:
710:
709:
707:
706:
705:
704:
698:deletion review
687:
669:
664:
659:
657:
623:
618:
613:
611:
517:The article on
472:Zinoviev letter
456:
451:
446:
444:
354:
346:The Independent
288:
283:
266:
261:
224:
219:
214:
212:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
714:
712:
703:
702:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
593:
592:
570:
569:
568:
567:
550:
549:
512:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
438:
437:
420:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
366:
365:
335:
317:
316:
296:
274:
251:
250:
197:
196:
133:
78:Paynes Poppets
72:
70:Paynes Poppets
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
713:
701:
699:
695:
690:
684:
676:
672:
667:
662:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
626:
621:
616:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:Merge or keep
513:
511:
507:
503:
502:
496:
493:
492:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
459:
454:
449:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
433:
431:
427:
424:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
359:
357:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
294:
291:
286:
280:
275:
272:
269:
264:
258:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
222:
217:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
688:
685:
603:
573:
557:Andy Dingley
514:
499:
494:
476:Andy Dingley
422:
405:
355:
337:
325:Andy Dingley
320:
235:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
640:KylieTastic
582:KylieTastic
539:Iaritmioawp
527:the article
163:free images
468:Daily Mail
430:j⚛e decker
350:DesignWeek
289:talk to me
267:talk to me
694:talk page
338:Weak keep
305:• Gene93k
284:Jinkinson
262:Jinkinson
201:Farmfoods
37:talk page
696:or in a
636:Toffifee
578:Toffifee
531:the page
523:Products
209:Toffifee
205:Toffifee
122:View log
54:Amatulić
39:or in a
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
606:(from
495:Deelte
356:JTdale
236:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
506:talk
410:Szzuk
387:Szzuk
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
670:ller
665:chba
660:Laun
644:talk
624:ller
619:chba
614:Laun
586:talk
574:Keep
561:talk
543:talk
480:talk
457:ller
452:chba
447:Laun
423:Keep
414:talk
406:Keep
391:talk
377:talk
342:here
329:talk
321:keep
309:talk
244:talk
225:ller
220:chba
215:Laun
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
59:talk
50:keep
501:DGG
191:TWL
120:– (
646:)
604:ay
588:)
563:)
545:)
508:)
482:)
416:)
393:)
379:)
352:,
348:,
331:)
311:)
303:.
281:.
259:.
246:)
211:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
642:(
584:(
559:(
541:(
504:(
478:(
412:(
389:(
375:(
327:(
307:(
242:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.