Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Chicken Sandwich - Wikipedia

Article Images

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, no arguments for deletion have been made, those arguing for keep have made policy based arguments for keeping. Whether any of these with fewer reliable sources should be merged can be considered elsewhere not requiring a deletion discussion. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large, large amount of cruft. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog (or in this case a menu), and as such we do not need lengthy descriptions of every product on the Burger King menu: they are not independently notable, nor do they help establish the notability of Burger King, nor are any of them an important enough aspect of Burger King to warrant their own articles. Add to that the fact that most of these lack any reliable sources whatsoever, most suffer from peacock terms, and that there already exists an article, Burger King products, that can contain short descriptions of these menu items. - Chardish 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree that these articles read as a way to sell the products (or menu). Some of them could use more information, and could honestly be written a little better, but a number of the articles give a context of the concept and culture used to create these items which also gives a context of the business practices of Burger King. Some of these articles have way too much information to just merge into the Burger King products article as well.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Burger King products. There is no way that any of these could be expanded to a decent sized, cruft-free article, so it would be best to have a short description on the Burger King Products page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Burger King products and shorten drastically. --carelesshx _talk 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All: As stated above. Obviously. - Rjd0060 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Reasons for keep:

These items are the major products or products that are unique to major global company, not every product they sell.
WP:NOT - these articles are not a set of indiscriminate information, and they do not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not.
They show how a company adapts when moving into new markets and address cultural differences between its home market and the areas it does business.
The help show how a company responds to its competition by adapting existing lines of products or creating new ones.
When sourced (I admit that not all have sources), the sources include major industry magazines (Nation's Restaurant News), major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news. All of the content is supported by multiple, independent sources
I did not do any original research, all the data and information was found through searches made on Google. The information was sourced via the results. Searches included Burger King Islam, Burger King nutrition and Burger King Asia. When sourcing, I tried to avoid BK sites.

Additionally, they meet the four standards of notability as stated in WP:NOTE:

There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
The sources are reliable;
The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
I generated none of the information, am not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.

With the ongoing debate about obesity in Western nations, there has been signifigant media coverage of the items in the press to fulfill WP:Notability standards, and many have cited references in the articles. Also, many of these articles were created in response to growing size of the main article, Burger King products, using the WP:Summary style guidelines. Finally, if you could please list the peacock terms that you are claiming to exist, as I pretty much edited all peacock terms out of the main body these articles months ago to ensure that they all conformed with the WP:NPOV guidelines and appear to have missed some. - Jeremy (Jerem43 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. "WP:NOT - these articles are not a set of indiscriminate information, and they do not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not." from WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas" such as a sales catalog; ~~WP:INN,~~ are you saying that every one of these products has independent press coverage? --Thin boy 00 @52, i.e. 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, whether it is over nutritional issues, new or unique products or because they are mentioned in reference for an cross-promotional advertising campaign; just about all of them have had some sort of press coverage. By this time tomorrow I should have at least four citations of secondary sources for each article from reliable places such as the New York Times, USAToday, AP, Reuters and even Variety, all currently have at least one as of now - Jeremy (Jerem43 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)), amended (06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep all and try to reference better. Excellent summaries, and excellent nutritional information, excellent photos, but the ugliest infobox, for BK, I have ever seen in Wikipedia. And please don't cite cruft as a reason for deletion, just stick to the Wikipedia notability guidelines. The ones I have looked at are excellent with summaries of the national advertising campaigns, A quick search in the NYT archive gave lots of references. Fast food items are one of the largest selling consumer food products in history, especially the big 5 lines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all The only BK product notable enough to have its own article would be the Whopper.--SeizureDog 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be more helpful if you cited some transgression of Wikipedia notability policy. Anecdotes are fun, but not of use in policy debates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may also note that the Whopper article doesn't have any secondary references used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just taking one at random, BK Veggie gets 246 Google News hits, many of which seem usable. I'll bet a good number of these items can be shown to pass WP:N with a little research. Zagalejo^^^ 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I agree with Jerem43's point about all of these sandwiches meeting the 4 inclusion standards he references from WP:NOTE and with Richard Arthur Norton's comments about AfD not being an appropriate forum for dealing with matters of cruft, especially when the intended result of this nomination seems to be a merger into the "list of..." article. I could see there being a case for some of the lesser-known products to maybe be merged until they have some work done, but most of these food items (especially the TenderCrisp, Croissan'Wich, Orig. Chicken Sandwich, and Chicken Tenders) the sail past notability guidelines with ease. These articles should be tagged for sources, improvement, and expansion as needed and have the info boxes improved and, maybe some of them like the baguettes and Stacker should be slapped with a merge tag and have it discussed on talk pages. Overall, though, Wikipedia is better for having NPOV articles on popular products from international FF outlets. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cruft is shorthand for "I don't like it", and I am too lazy to do the simplest due diligence with a Google News search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per SeizureDog. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. (Improvement is needed, of course.) Rocket000 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All adequate sources and information is provided to establish notability. Contrary to the nomination, this is not a sales catalog (or at least I found no way to place an order for a BK Stacker). "Cruft" is just a shorthand excuse for deletion that basically translates directly as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All of the other issues raised in the nomination (e.g. WP:PEACOCK) are most appropriately addressed by editing, not by deletion. Alansohn 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I forgot to add that myself, I knew that the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has a specific tag for that: WP:ITSCRUFT. - Jeremy (Jerem43 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- No, "cruft" is a shorthand argument that means "this topic is not notable independent of its parent topic, and there is not enough culturally relevant information on this topic from secondary sources to warrant having its own article." - Chardish 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At least perform the minimal due diligence before typing here. A simple Google News search, which I did before making a comment, indicated to me that the the topic was notable. All it took was a few nanoseconds, faster than it took you to write "cruft". If you are still arguing at this point that there is "not enough culturally relevant information on this topic". I keenly suspect, you still haven't done any research. I cant even be sure you read each of the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has a whole set of policies. "Cruft" isn't one of them. Until "Cruft" is accepted as a valid justification for deletion, it should never be used under any circumstances as the primary excuse for deleting a whole series of articles solely because the nominator doesn't like them. Alansohn 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not what you think, so please click through! --Thin boy 00 @52, i.e. 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've chosen to ignore it, in keeping with the title. An appeal to [{WP:IAR]] traditionally means "I don't have a shred of Wikipedia policy to hang this on, but I want to do whatever the hell I want, anyway". Alansohn 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These satisfy notability criteria and they contain plenty of encyclopedic content. Good grief. Wikidemo (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (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.