Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baconator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, per the current state of the article (much better than when it started). -- lucasbfr talk 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baconator

Baconator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lacks notability by itself and Wikipedia is not a menu. Very little info beyond the default composition. The only note worthy (and sourced) item is it being the official burger for the CFL. Wendy's Big Classic doesn't even have an article of its own, and it is arguably a more notable item, being a "core" Wendy's product. This would probably be better served by being in the main Wendy's article as part of their menu items. Indeed, it has been tagged for merge since August, but discussion in the Wendy's article closed with no consensus. Collectonian (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with the above, and would like to add that for most of this article's history, it has existed merely as a repeatedly and often hit vandal target. It isn't useful, or notable, and it just wastes the times of other editors reverting vandalism. I say off with it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge off to Wendy's and redirect there. No need for it to have an article of its own; it's one of many menu items, and hasn't really got a legendary reputation like, say, a Big Mac. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge As above --Quadraxis (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wendy's - sourceable, but not needing its own article (yet). Alternatively, sourced information could be used to expand the article, such as the nutrition facts available from Wendy's, and I'm sure with a name like Baconator there's some public health lobby protesting it. Keep due to improvements and sources provided by Jeremy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold on Give me until friday and I will get this looking better, since no one else would like to. As one of the few products that Wendy's has named, I believe that there is some further information that can be included that will prove the product should have an article of its own per WP:NOTE. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
    • I have found some stuff that confirms it as confirming to wp:note from the New York Times and USA Today. I also improved the structure of the article to conform with Wiki standards and have the same format as similar articles. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
  • that being said, Keep:
Reasons for keep:
  1. This item is a major product of a major global company.
  2. WP:NOT - this article is not a set of indiscriminate information, and does not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not.
  3. It is part of a major business plan for this company's corporate restructuring.
  4. It helps to show how a company responds to its competition by creating new lines of products.
  5. 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 multiple, independent sources
  6. No original research.
Additionally, it meets the four standards of notability as stated in WP:NOTE:
  1. There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
  2. The sources are reliable;
  3. The sources are secondary, or when primary they follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
  4. 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

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

  • Keep For reasons stated by Jeremy --DJBullfish (talk) 9:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because some people do not think this is "notable" does not mean it should be deleted. I agree it meets WP:NOTE standards. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 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.