Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanjo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanjo

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable sandwich served (and discontinued years ago) by a single university cafeteria. Normally I would prod this, but the speedy was already contested (meaning, I feel prod would be a waste of time). Delete I am now changing my vote -- to Extremely strong delete, due to users that are now stalking me on IM due to my stance on this issue. Andy Saunders 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As there is no other place on the internet where the recipe or process for this sandwich is available, I feel that wikipedia is fufilling its mission of keeping information not otherwise available accessible to anyone who needs it. I also contest OntarioQuizzer's use of the phrase "non-notable".--Indiebass 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts." "A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject." (from WP:8W). I am of the opinion that the Spanjo is not of interest to a significant number of people; therefore, I refer to it as "non-notable". -- Andy Saunders 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Additionally, a Google shows a total of 1 hit for 'spanjo Michigan'; to a site that is only in Google's cache. -- Andy Saunders 21:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Indibass, thank you very much for your contribution. I made myself a spango for lunch today and it was amazing! I believe that it would be a slap in the face to vegitarians everywhere if this sandwhich was deleted from record and forever lost to civilization. Andy Saunders seems to be a typical Canadian anti-vegitarianite. Just because it does not have gravy does not mean it is not good. Besides Andy, who made you the sandwich police?!! [Spango-fango]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.65.210 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. If it's so good then write it down yourself and share it on your own website, and come back here when it's a common lunch item. Grandmasterka 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "the Spanjo is not of interest to a significant number of people" -OntarioQuizzer. Again: not true. The University of Michigan has the world's largest number of living alumni, more than a few of whom have eaten spanjos. I fail to see why anyone would want to make legitimate information unavailable. As a repository of information, wikipedia should pride itself on making the underserved accessible. Yes, your Funk and Wagnall is going to have a Reuben in it, but the Wikipedia was created for items like the Spanjo. --Indiebass 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As Andy Saunders has demonstrated, Wikipedia was not created for such items. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and for completely unconvincing arguments supporting the article. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bugwit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No convincing argument to keep it. If it's no longer on the menu, and nobody else has ever served it, it's a one-off. --Elkman - (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep! Delete this article and the terrorists win. (Happy, Osama?) AndySaundersIsAFascist (talk • contribs)
Comment: Wikipedia convention is "keep", not "do not delete". Remember to sign your posts on talk pages as well. -- Andy Saunders 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


keep Thesquire wrote: "As Andy Saunders has demonstrated..." Has he really? Because you say it does that make it so? There are several comments in support of this article, and I wouldn't have created it just so it could be deleted. I would like someone to tell me 1) what is the best thing that could happen by deleting this article and 2) what is the worst thing that could happen by keeping this article. I think you'll find that more information is preferable to deleting something because you don't know what it is. Maybe it makes you afraid. I don't know. What I do know is deleting this article is a blow against the guiding principles that wikipedia was founded on.

--Indiebass 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!!!The Spanjo is how I met my husband. You see, I was at the Halfass, trying to decide which sandwich to order, when the guy in front of me ordered a Spanjo. I was thinking about trying the Spanjo myself, but as a poor college student, I was reluctant to spend my money on a sandwich I might not like. I asked the guy in front of me how the Spanjo was, and with his encouragement, I took the plunge. We ended up eating our Spanjos together that afternoon, and 5 years later we got married (and for the record, we had mini Spanjos during the cocktail hour). Every year, we return to Michigan for a football game, and on these trips we are sure to visit the Halfass for a Spanjo at least one time (they still make the sandwich, even though it is not on the official menu). Go Blue! (talk • contribs)

    • KEEP!!! Please tell me how the Spanjo falls into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category - it is NOT a list of frequently asked questions, it is NOT a list of repositories or loosely associated topics, it is NOT a travel guide, it is NOT a memorial, it is NOT news report, it is NOT a genealogical or phonebook entry, it is NOT a directory or resource for conducting business, and it is NOT an instruction manual. Frankly, I really don't understand what all the protesting is about. If someone could provide a calm and rational argument, I would really appreciate it. What is the harm of leaving this page up? Given the large number of posts in a relatively short period of time, this is clearly of interest to a significant number of people. Go Blue! (talk • contribs)
  • Delete oh! my! god! once again, it's always the least likely stuff that ends up being goofily contested on AfD. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Adrian, you seem fond of pointing that out. JoshuaZ 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, the absurdity isn't going to appreciate itself. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you could make a much better argument for the Eli Breakfast Sandwich than Spanjo, in that it is served in some variant all over Yale and even has a vegetarian version at the kosher kitchen. (Don't worry, I'm not going to make an article about it.) JoshuaZ 21:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP! I am so disappointed in this community right now. Someone can work so hard to *create* something, but you take one keystroke and make it SO easy to *destroy* it. Because you don't understand something you destroy it. This isn't a world I can believe in. You can destroy every last trace of the Spanjo on the Wikipedia, but you can't destroy its LEGACY! ¡Viva el Spanjo! --Indiebass 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Then put it on Wikibooks:Cookbook:Recipes. That project is actually building a list of recipes, and it might be a more appropriate place for this. --Elkman - (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Multiple votes from one user? That's a no-no... --Kinu t/c 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I count waaaay more than one keystroke here, Indiebass. ~MDD4696 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I could seriously go for a Spanjo right now... -- Samir ∙ TC 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even though the arguments to keep are entertaining. Edgar181 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds jummy, but I already ate. Eivind 23:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as cafeteriacruft (which seems to be a trend lately). dbtfztalk 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Grandmasterka. -- Krash (Talk) 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to point out that there does not appear to be a registered user named User:Go Blue!. All comments by the same would seem to originate from 143.231.249.141. Why impersonate a nonexistent user? -- Krash (Talk) 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure sandwich. I wouldn't order one and given that it is no longer served anywhere in the world, it seems that was the common opinion. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bugwit and others. Non-notable to 99.9% of the population. I could see it as having a brief mention in the University of Michigan article as something unique to the area, but seeing that it no longer exists, that is kind of pointless. -Dawson 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! UMich graduate here. happened to stumble across the spanjo article just now. I really hope it is *not* deleted. I can tell you the Spanjo did in fact exist, and also was nutritious as well as delicious. It was still being served when i was there, and the "word" eataspanjo was painted on the ceiling. So, for what it's worth the information is legitimate. Thanks for the reminder! --East Quad ResCollege Grad, class of 99 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.238.8 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 March 2006.
  • Weak Keep The notability of the spanjo really needs to be better clarified for this article to live on. Some of you who are voting keep might want to consider going back to the article and helping build it up soon. Kukini 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Andy Saunders and all the others. Mallocks 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! I'm new to this site (and thus I'm sure that big red box above refers to me) I can't say I'm an expert in all things wiki-related, but I can vouch for the fact that the sandwich in questions does exist. Not only is it surprisingly tasty, it does hold a bit of cultural significance in south central michigan. Point is, while this "information" may only be interesting to a very small sliver of the population, isn't that enough? It's not made up. It's true. And the information itself takes up a whole lot less space that the protests against it. As I said, from someone who is new to wikipedia, I thought this was precisely the place to put information like this, information you couldn't find anywhere else. sixofrock 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.189.252.158 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 March 2006.
"information that you can't find anywhere else" easily violates WP's "verifiability" tenet. If you can't find it anywhere else, how can you verify it to ensure that it's actually true? Nobody's done any sort of scholarly work on the Spanjo; Letterman hasn't eaten a Spanjo on his show; it's simply not notable, and if we were to include everything along the same notability level as the Spanjo, Wikipedia would be much too unwieldy and would lose a lot of its credibility. -- Andy Saunders 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep! OntarioQuizzer, the minimum standard for a newspaper in terms of verification is three independent sources. Including myself, there is at least that on this article, and my guess would be more to come. Please do not tell me you find the standards of the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and New York Times not stringent enough for you or the Wikipedia. On a personal note, the idea that this article is even being contested is truly ridiculous. --Indiebass 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Users saying that it is true doesn't cut it; we need PUBLISHED sources, and it still does nothing for the fact that the Spanjo is not notable for 99.99% of the population. The idea that people with no idea whatsoever about Wikipedia policy are actually trying to find reasons for keeping the article is truly ridiculous, in my opinion. -- Andy Saunders 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2) The only verifiable information I could find on the Spanjo is at this link. And it's from Google's cache, because the East Quadrangle Halfway Inn doesn't serve the Spanjo any more. Also, in regard to the standards that newspapers use: A major newspaper wouldn't do a story on a sandwich that some restaurant no longer serves. It wouldn't be notable. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this debate; it sounds like you (Indiebass) are trolling us and trying to provoke a reaction. I predict that when some administrator comes to close this vote, they'll see all the voting from anonymous users and people whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to defend an article on a discontinued sandwich, and they'll close the vote and delete it. --Elkman - (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
3) Multiple votes from one user? That's a no-no... --Kinu t/c 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

--Who is being accused of sock puppetry here?

The Golden/Blue sock puppet award, for sock-puppetry above and beyond the call of duty
Enlarge
The Golden/Blue sock puppet award, for sock-puppetry above and beyond the call of duty

Keep Since the Whopper is listed in Wikipedia I think the Spanjo should be included. A delicious sandwich should not be discriminated against simply because it is not served by a national chain. Andy's reply is going to be: "But the Whopper can be verified by published sources and many more people care about the Whopper." Good points Andy, but having eaten a Spanjo myself I must say keep. --Velcroshoe 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This User's only edits are to this page. Ryanjunk 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's true, I just learned about Wikipedia a weak ago. I'm a newbie.--Velcroshoe 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Comparing a sandwich served at exactly one place for a limited amount of time which has one web link to a food served by an international food chain is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Andy - it's not inconceivable that more than 600,000 people have enjoyed a Spanjo (Michigan is a huge school), meaning that more than .01% of the population has intimate knowledge of it. Furthermore, let's say that each of those people told one other person about the sandwich in their lifetime. That's 1.2 million people. Are you so stuck up as to deny that 1.2 million people constitutes enough valid sources? --TsarSteve 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This whole discussion amuses me. The reason I say to Keep it are because I love this sandwich and I know that I am not alone in my enjoyment. The "eataspanjo" is an Ann Arbor equivalent to the restaurant chain Steak and Shake's "Takhomasak". It's a local legend of a sandwich. --Velcroshoe 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable sandwich. No Guru 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, surely this could at least be relegated to a note on the university's main page, I cannot concieve a good argument for having an entire page devoted to this now non-existant sandwich. Mallocks 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion has to go to BJAODN! Also, I found a picture of a Spanjo [1] -- Samir ∙ T C 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • MMM-MMM! Now if that doesn't get your mouth watering... um, I mean... no wonder they stopped serving it. --Kinu t/c 08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable outside the UoM. Stifle 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all non-puppet votes above. Hey, AfD is not supposed to make one hungry... Sandstein 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh my dear sweet lord. Delete as sandwichcruft and close this AfD early per rampant sockpuppeting and WP:SNOW. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the wikibooks cookbook, if that's allowed. Guymontag 21:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki if appropriate. Not even notable within UoM as far as I can tell, Stifle. ~MDD4696 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Spanjo_1ad0.html"