Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination)

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. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's menu items

this article was kept before in afd but with invalid WP:ILIKEIT reasoning here, rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, looks like every country has their own versions of a mc'donalds menu making it a endless list, unsourced see WP:V, and loaded with WP:OR, similar afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First nomination resulting in a Keep descision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items EnsRedShirt 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to point out that the nominator is on shaky ground using WP:ILIKEIT to try and invalidate the results of the previous AfD. Firstly, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Secondly, WP:ILIKEIT refers to liking the subject of an article, not liking the quality or usefulness of the article itself. Unless a majority of arguments were "Keep because McDonalds food is delicious" - and they weren't - there is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to invalidate previous consensus. --Canley 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:N wikipedia is not a menu and the article ads no value to Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The rundown:

• The subject matter is encyclopedic. The subject? A list of foods served by the biggest chain of restaurants in the world. Millions eat McDonald's food every day. I think this is enough to claim that this belongs in an encyclopedia.
• This is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minimum requirements right now are any food items sold by McDonald's, past or present. This can be tightened up a bit if need be. The list can't possibly be "endless". Large? Duh.
• Sources exist for this. Whether they be primary (from McDonald's) or secondary, they do exist.
• Secondary sources have covered the subject of McDonald's food as a whole. Therefore, we are not inventing some new concept by mashing a bunch of unrelated subjects together. Here's something that was published just today: [1]
• This article needs a cleanup, yes. But not deletion. --- RockMFR 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, it passes the Pokémon test, if that's your thing :) --- RockMFR 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I cannot state it any better than RockMFR. The article is decent. I think that half of the people who are voting for deletion are doing so because of McDonald's status as a large multination American corporation. Apfox 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I think it's worthwhile. Pretty much everything can be verified (it's not as if McDonald's is a small chain with a supersecret menu) and the original research can be edited out. I think that the "regional dishes" section is important/interesting enough for the article stay. This is more than a menu, some of the entries include history and many others might be expanded in the same way. The article is too long for the intersting stuff to be merged back into any other McDonald's article. superapathyman 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NOT encyclopedic. THis is not what we are here for. MiracleMat 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Take this to a fan wiki for restaurants (if such a thing exists). Wikipedia shouldn't be a source to read menus ever, period. RobJ1981 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think I commented before some of these items might be worthy of their own articles- it is a franchise after all- but this is less granular. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Many users have contributed to this article, and deletion would be an insult to the work they have put into it. It gives a lot of historical and current information on one of the world's largest corporations. --Mrath 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid reason to keep Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per most of those advocating same. The information is verifiable enough (and that which isn't obviously has no place here, blablablaboilerplate), and this information is encyclopedic enough to be included somewhere. It looks far too big to be plonked in the middle of the main article, so a separate one would make good sense. Strangely enough, my two McDonald's-addicted brothers were just comparing notes on "local specialties" we encountered on a recent trip through Europe. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - wow, this article is surprisingly well written for what looks like it should be a list. Talks about the dishes and their history, and in depth international varieties. The information is worthy of an article on WP - despite nomination by Jaranda, I see no evidence of WP:ILIKEIT here any more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Much of it is also easily verifiable - how hard is it to verify the contents of a Chicken McGrill through a link (blahblahboilerplate per BigHaz)? Part Deux 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and well written especially the international variations.. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• McDelete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the Burger King nomination above. Wikipedia is not a place to list all the items available at a retail outlet. Markb 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep before looking at the article, I thought the same as several people above: "if Wikipedia starts including menus, then God help us all...". However, looking at the article, I think it's a perfect example of the sort of international collaborative effort that is virtually only possible on Wikipedia. The article is NPOV, this is not a "fan page" as some have suggested. It's verifiable, in my opinion notable, and (at the risk of being accused of WP:ILIKEIT) pretty bloody interesting. Perhaps part of the problem is the title - "Regional variations of McDonald's food" does not seem to have the "Wikipedia as a collection of menus" connotation that the current title does. --Canley 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Several items on the menu at McDonald's have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. However, much of this article is messy, pointless OR McCruft. There's nothing wrong with a well sourced article on notable McDonald's menu items, but let's not be afraid to clear out the cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a travel guide, a directory, a publisher of original thought or a menu. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but article editors should consider renaming. McDonald's has spawned hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles around the world dedicated to it's menu alone. It was the subject of a documentary which saw a nation-wide release in movie theatres. While WP:NOT describes an indiscriminate collection of information, the items this list and the subject itself meet WP:V and WP:N and the article is a narrow, discrimating collection of information. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't be placing a vote in this particular AFD since it's pretty clear what the consensus is. However in order to adhere to WP:NPOV I have no choice but to place a keep vote for the Burger King version of this article. Abstain. 23skidoo 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - menus change, people should just follow a link to McD's website from the main article. Jefferson Anderson 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as Lankybugger notes, the McDonald's menu is itself the subject of frequent coverage, since this is one of the world's major brands. This is not indiscriminate (although there's little point to listing all the soda brands, if you ask me), different international menus is in fact justification for having this article, and WP:V and WP:OR problems may be dealt with via cleanup or dispute resolution. This is a very logical subarticle to McDonald's. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In all honesty, sometimes I support a page because it has been created although I think other ways would be as proper. I would have been satisfied with a template since there are 28 items in Category:McDonald's foods. However, since it is there, there is little reason to delete. I did not check for overlap of article with individual food item articles however. TonyTheTiger 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a valid article as per my reasons stated in the Burger King thread. In addition, the menu is not just a collection of products for sale but a form of advertising that targets demographic trends and groups as well as the tastes of the markets these companies operate in. These companies spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on developing products that will give them market share and is a major part of their operating budgets; these articles help demonstrate that. To delete these sub-articles would take away from the main articles and fail to demonstrate how one aspect of the modern restaurant chain business works. While I understand his initial reasoning that these articles were just a list of products, it is my belief is that Jarada may never have been fully exposed to the product development processes of modern business that these articles are trying to explain and may not fully understand the reasoning process that goes into creating products at a major, international chain (I am not making a dig or insult of him, just trying to understand his thought process).

Jerem43 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed.

1. Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant while not only manufacturing the product (food) a restaurant provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
2. The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
3. Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.

Jerem43 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As on the Burger King outlets discussion above, you argue that a McDonalds is not the same as any other store, it is actually a factory. Again I ask you for evidence to back this up; McDonalds don't claim their outlets are factories, and where local authorities have powers to zone or designate specific activities in specific areas, they do not class McDonalds as factories. Show me an example of a shopping mall where such a mix is allowed - the shops, the McDonalds, the Ford truck engine plant etc. Markb 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:

man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing

Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r

Function: noun

What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:

man·u·fac·ture

Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand

1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery

2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor

2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery

3 : the act or process of producing something

Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

Jerem43 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• To further explain why the argument is flawed, Ford, Kraft and Coca-Cola do have regional differences in their markets, and they do change their offerings from time to time. I don't know if you've ever bought soda for retail, but if you had, you'd have a coke man come visit you and tell you about their new products, or their discontinuations if something isn't selling well. You may also wish to see List of Coca-Cola brands, List of Ford vehicles and Kraft Foods has a brand section which I think would make a good article. Mister.Manticore 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info - this is in effect a list. Any useful information that is relevant to MacDonalds, menus or food in general should be merged to those articles. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested. The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items? Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a menu, a directory, a nutrition guide or an almanac. I also stand by what I said in the original AfD, even if I might have phrased it differently today. Agent 86 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• You deserve a keep today. The article isn't just a simple menu -- it offers history and reasoning behind the menu items. Besides, some items such as Quarter Pounder have their own articles, and they haven't been deleted yet. I don't see any good way that the article could be merged back into the McDonald's article without causing the main article to become bloated (kind of like someone who's eaten two or three Big Macs.) I'm keepin' it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a menu. Agreed that it tends to attract annoying cruft, but that's what editing is for. I started this article in the first place, and did so because explanations of menu items cluttered the main article and, despite the broad homogeneity of McDonald's menu worldwide, there are significant differences that should be documented. Billions and billions served: that's notable. (Oh, Jaranda didn't inform me of this AfD... tsk tsk.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is not a menu, nutrition guide, or almanac. Contains valuable history of product offerings and regional variations, promotions etc. And, I like it. Fg2 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep though the content of restaurant meals is not normally N, it is for this chain and its major competitors, for they are part of what passes for American civilisation, and changes are widely noted in the media. DGG 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• McKeep per Fg2 --Candy-Panda 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• McDelete' per McNot. --Shirahadasha 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Regional/international variations (beef substitutions in India, etc.) and history of popular items (Filet-O-Fish created to appeal to Catholics) are notable business & economics topics, if not also culinary topics. Wl219 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per my reasons on the burger king nomination. Winterborn 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per several contributors, especially Jerem43. --Goochelaar 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What next: List of things sold by Wallmart ?-Doc^g 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the article you're looking for is: List of Wal-Mart brands. Mister.Manticore 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuck! But then brands are a lot different from listing individual items.--Doc^g 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're upset over that, I think it provides valuable encyclopedic content, as it provides information as to what in-house brands Wal-mart has. They are the world's largest retail concern after all. And while I do concur that listing every product produced under those brands might eventually be a bit much, that same problem doesn't apply to a fast food restaurant, which even though they can have a large menu, is still a bit more finite in scope. And besides, if you look at Sam's Choice you will see it does list individual products. Mister.Manticore 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let's see, nobody can question McDonald's overall notability, right? What are they notable for? Serving food. Heck, their food gets in the news with some regularity. (I know there were news articles about the Arch Deluxe, and I bet they even appeared on the Today show and Good Morning America. Thus covering their food is highly important. This article does a reasonable job of doing that, and in fact, the nomination for deletion makes a good argument for having this article. International differences are yet another thing people might want to know. I've even seen newspaper and magazine articles that discuss it. Mister.Manticore 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep At first I was sceptical about this article, however, the sheer enormity of the McDonald's franchise, and consequentially, its cultural influence around the globe, makes the list more than simply fancruft. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I'm not saying I really enjoy every item on McDonald's, but McDonald's has a vast history with many cultural differences, menu bombs, and so on. I was just thinking that this is always a hotbed of activity. There's always a tag at the top. So, what's wrong?

• The article needs a cleanup, nay, complete rewrite. No one's satisfied if their country is plummeted to the bottom, if the countries are out of order and in bullets, discontinuations here, late intros here, and so on.
• This has virtually no source citations. Many items are kept by word of mouth, I've never even heard of the "Mac Jr."!
• It reads like an advertisement. "crisp, juicy lettuce"? That's probably c&p'd from the official site.
• Lack of tables. Tables could work, but it would require a major thinking process.

In short, the McDonald's menu items article is a complete mess, but it does not deserve to be deleted. So I've added a Rewrite tag to the article. TheListUpdater 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "complete mess" at all; only the international section is long and unordered. The occasional advertising phrasing that crops up is a separate issue, but usually quickly deleted. I have moved the tag down to the international section; the U.S. section is already ordered into logical sections. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Strong Keep I was looking for exactly this piece of information on the internet and only Wikipedia had it. Makes this a deeply more useful encyclopedia. I'm serious. McD is one of the biggest and most important American restaruans out htere. One could argue there IS some inherent value in studying it's menu. Keep. --Hollerbackgril 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question So you are saying the article should stay on Wikipedia because there is no other source for the information? Jeepday 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

reply one of the values of wikipedia's open source architecture is it's ability to provide information that is shut out from other, more established venue. so, yes i think availibility elsewhere is one among many factors that contribute to an article's value on wikipedia.--Hollerbackgril 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Making this a primary source, and therefore original research? JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

false wikipedia makes this information more accessible, and hence more valuable. i would have to navigate too many menus to get to mcd's original info. I much prefer it here. --137.146.177.86 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment": There is as much WP:ILIKEIT as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so don't think that the WP:ILIKEIT is the only factor. TheListUpdater 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT. See sister AfD regarding Burger King menu items. /Blaxthos 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, you aren't using WP:SCORCHEDEARTH are you? TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could some one explain why the Burger King Article was deleted, while this one is still here? The history, etc has all been deleted. If McD's has been kept, then the original BK article should be restored. Jerem43 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It had been vandalized. It's corrected now... TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Blnguyen (bananabucket) has declared that it was deleted due to consensus.

• Keep per RockMFR reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete for what it's worth. You can't convince me this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information no matter how many sources you get. You want to know what's on the McDonald's menu, then go to McDonald's. JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hard to justify keeping (also valid) articles criticizing McDonald's menu when we would censor (delete) the menu central to the controversy. Duh! Carlossuarez46 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't care how well-developed the list is - it's still a stupid list, and should go the way of the Burger King menu list (which, by the way, is getting shot down at deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Finding out what's on the menu at McDonalds now may be best learned by going to McDonalds, but finding out what used to be on the menu, and when, or what they serve in other countries, is the job of an encyclopedia article about McDonald's menu items. This has clear criteria for inclusion, is notable, and has verifiable sources. Please do not try to stifle opinions or distort consensus by preemptively declaring some opinions to be invalid and unworthy of consideration. That sort of argument is uncivil and needs to stop. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said! TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, ubiquitous and significant global product line. The reasons presented for deletion seem better addressed by cleanup than by deleting the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete lists of products like this are not what Wikipedia is for. Menu's are essentially a kind of directory. Eluchil404 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article not just lists products, but also provides context and international differences. Although it could require additional sourcing, that is merely an argument for improvement, not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To be perfectly frank, I am very irritated at all the Keep votes here. Where were you guys for the Burger King discussion? I think all Keep votes should be discounted unless they can explain why McD's should stay while Burger King's should go. JuJube 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Afd's are not a vote, but I blame the closing admin for misinterpretating the situation, as I believe that person was mistaken in their analysys. If anybody here concurs and feels like saying so: The Deletion Review is the place to speak. Mister.Manticore 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There's already a DRV, but it's not going well. If this gets closed as Keep (as it likely will), I'll make a second one. JuJube 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So, being arrogant, trying as many times to vanquish an article for good? Do you know how immature that is? You are so like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SCORCHEDEARTH. TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I actually read that as saying that JuJube would take a keep decision as a grounds to review the deletion of the Burger King article, not as an intent to argue for the deletion of this one. Perhaps you might wish to ask if that was what he or she meant? Mister.Manticore 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your passion but I actually meant if this gets closed as Keep, I would argue to get the BK closure overturned and the article restored. Nice try on getting indignant, though. We all love the wikidrama. JuJube 22:29, 6 February 2007 (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.