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The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saxa (food product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I was unable to find anything that shows notability. This brand of salt and pepper fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Brand is very well-known in UK. I have added some quick refs. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – References to reliable sources indicate notability. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Independent ref to it as among "Britain's best-known food brands". AllyD (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even a bad piece is better than no Saxa at all. Carrite (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lasting notability. It is disappointing that we do not have good sources yet, but the story of how this became one of the most instantly recognisable brands in the UK and apparently Australia and South Africa would make a good topic. It began as a brand name of Cerebos in 1907, but there may be more to that as Cerebos was itself an established salt brand. It is inconceivable that it has not been explored in more than one study. --AJHingston (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - Very well known in the UK by most people, and possibly the best known brand of salt. I have occasionally heard "truckload of Saxa" being used as an exaggeration of "pinch of salt". --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Consider this withdrawn. For something so well known, the article sure sucks. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've just added a Journal of Consumer Marketing reference, but there must be many others. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (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.