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. bd2412 T 02:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a Biskit (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)

non-notable brand name. fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 21:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J947^{( c ) (m)} 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Merge to Cracker (food), or Nabisco. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This thoroughly bizarre and disgusting idea seems to be notable, based on the volume of this product, lack of any comparable and competing products and the "in a biscuit" notion from it spreading into non-cracker foods and beyond. Just don't ask me to eat one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far from having no competiors, they have been discountinued in most major markets [1], now only avaiable in the USA. This article is not about a 'notion'. It is about a subsidiary company and food brand of Nabisco, there are literally hundreds of varieties of crackers, these are not special or even high volume. Dysklyver 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no other "meat in a cracker" products like this. But then I'm not looking for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Yet another minor brand line about which there is basically only routine coverage. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nabisco#Brands, where it is mentioned. I have not found enough secondary sourcing to support an independent article, but the page had 2,984 views in the past 30 days. It is obviously a plausible search term and so a redirect is warranted. —Mark viking (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable brand that possesses a unique (via an odd production method) attribute and has attracted enough attention to pass WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect suggested above would be preferable to deletion, but it would be best to let the article stand as is. The product is clearly well–known, as evidenced by the number of page views, and the sourcing provided in the article brings the article very close to the requirements, if it does not pass them. Lepricavark (talk) 04:48, 20 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.