Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items

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--JForget 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burger King menu items

Burger King menu items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's baaaaack! we deleted this (or something very much like it) in February, but here it is again. Some of the content may be salvageable but for the love of Jimbo, do we really need an article listing all the menu items you can buy at BK? Fails WP:NOT#INFO and probably WP:NOR, because as far as this article makes out no reliable sources have talked about any of the menu items in detail, other than to reprint press releases. If all this is sourced from the BK website (which it probably is) then we can simply link it. If it's not listed on the BK website then the whole thing should go as random information. And the sources? All originate from press releases by the look of it. None independent. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of reference notes about this article:

  1. This is not the same article that was deleted before. The original article was simply a list of the products sold by Burger King and was called Burger King menu items; this article was, until 20 September 2007, called Burger King products and, while containing much of that list, also contains significantly more information than the original. The Burger King products article was moved to the old title by Andrew in order to merge histories per an AN request.
  2. Both articles were, for the most part, sourced from the Burger King article's "Product" section dating to late 2006. They were separated from the main BK article when it past the 50 kb limit roughly November 30, 2006. Current size of the two articles is 34 kb for the Burger King article and 42 Kb for the Burger King menu items (formerly products).
  3. The original article, Burger King menu items, was deleted as part of the AfD discussion, while the McDonald's version of the same article was kept.

I hope that this clarifies any confusion. - Jeremy (Jerem43 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)) (slightly adjusted per invitation, see talk-Andrew c [talk] 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comments I don't see how this fails WP:NOT#INFO. Burger King is a decades old, internationally-known restaurant. Its food is consumed by millions of people. A detailed fork about said food seems reasonable to me. And I don't think you looked at all the sources very well. Is this NY Times article a press release? Zagalejo^^^ 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's the old AFD. (This really should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (second nomination), but it might be too complicated to change it now.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. That's an awful lot of sources... • Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:ITSSOURCED 131.94.22.25 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:DOSPAGWYA. Let's have more prose and fewer internal links, please. Your argument, in particular, means nothing without elaboration. Zagalejo^^^ 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Two points, first ITSSOURCED was disputed, so much in fact, that the section about it was removed. Presence of sources strikes right at our notability guideline and the verifiability policy, both real policy-based arguments. Second, just putting a link to ATA is just as silly as just linking to a guideline without any explanation. I am tempted to direct you to WP:JUSTAPOLICY, but I won't. ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Excellent article, well sourced. I don't detect any original research. Notability set by articles in New York Times, among others. Verifiability is set from the BK press releases. The deleter is confusing nobility with verifiability. Press releases determine verifiability not notability. This article should be used as a template for the McDonald's menu items article, that article is too list like and everything is in bold. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Yeah, it looks like it's based on BK press releases. Keep, so that someobody can add the part that ISN'T on here... like how many calories and grams of fat are in each of the items on the menu, or how much of your recommended weekly allowance of just about anything can be had or exceeded by a Whopper (TM). The test of whether this is advertising is based on whether the unfavorable information is edited out. Mandsford 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note People might be interested in comparing the arguments in the AfD for McDonald menu items:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/McDonald's_menu_items_(2nd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/McDonald's_menu_items--Victor falk 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, per Guy's nom. Honestly, crap like this needs purging and purging fast. For those who would rather keep such articles, I suggest you read WP:NOT. ^demon[omg plz] 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ugh, another vague WP:NOT argument. Without explaining how the article violates WP:NOT, it's impossible to have a proper discussion about it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To address each of Guy's points:
  1. WP:NOT#INFO - It is not a set of indiscriminate information, it details how a fast food company addresses issues like the ongoing obesity crisis in the US and elsewhere or issues a waste generation and disposal. It also does not seem meet any of the ten general criteria in WP:Not.
  2. It shows how a company adapts when moving into new markets and address cultural differences between its home market and the areas it does business.
  3. It shows how a company responds to its competition.
  4. 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. And yes, BK's corporate web pages and press releases. In short, all of the content is supported by multiple, independent sources
  5. 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.
Specifically, my counterpoints show that 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 all secondary;
  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.
As I read the articles, all entries meet the WP:NPOV standard.
Jeremy (Jerem43 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep well sourced article for a major international corporation with regionalism within the markets it exists in and an article like this that is properly sourced illustrates those differences that one would miss in individual menu item articles. As an academic, and having visited these sites for research in my Gastronomy Masters degree program, I know that Jeremy's writing is not original research, but recitation of facts in his use of language. Press releases are an appropriate method for sourcing as, well it's from the company that the article is about, that's a primary source.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's baaaaack, and it's staying for good this time! A thoroughly-researched and well-documented article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish that this fork of a notable topic meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. One would be hard pressed to find any aspect of WP:NOT that has anything to do with this article, other than as an excuse for deletion, though perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT was intended, and seems to be a far more accurate description of the nomination. By the way, where are the results for the original AfD? Furthermore, the Keep result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination), an almost exact duplicate in structure and content of this article, would seem to set a rather strong precedent for retention. Alansohn 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well written and well sourced article. DCEdwards1966 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Burger King or Delete. --LAZY 1L 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite notable. Everyking 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I voted to "delete" the last one, and I have no real regrets about doing so since that article was if I recall correctly, a mere list of products menu items without any discussion. A list of menu items is not an article. What we have here though is a much better article, putting Burger King's (which is a major restaurant chain) into context, describing history, dietary and health issues, preparation details, and notes about regional variations. This is now backed up by secondary sources in the article, including USA Today and Reuters, and per WP:N, such independent coverage establishes notability. Although press releases are primary sources, they are perfectly acceptable in an article about itself per WP:SELFPUB. Judging notability from the sources, notability is well-established, and since all the significant claims in the article are referenced, I see no WP:NOR or WP:V problems. Sources aside and making a subjective judgement of notability, I note that Burger King is one of the largest fast-food chains in the world, selling food is what they base their business on. Having an article about the food they sell is perfectly relevant as a side article to the main Burger King article, which has a greater focus on the corporation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comments - this AfD seems to be a result of the WP:AN thread that I started here. I find this disappointing for several reasons. (1) I was aware that drawing attention to the articles in this manner might prompt a new AfD, but I was hoping that people would focus on the page history issues I had raised, not the AfD issues. (2) Guy failed to nominate McDonalds menu items for deletion, despite my comment in that AN thread: "It is silly to have one article of this type survive AfD and the other not. I personally believe both should be kept, but it is desirable to be consistent in cases like this." Carcharoth 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - but move both this and McDonalds menu items (and other similar 'menu' articles) to a article named as 'products'. ie. McDonalds products and Burger King products, and focus on the cultural differences between countries, and the product history, rather than the current menu, and also include nutritional information where available (may be difficult). There is the potential for a very good article here, and the current state of the article is a step along the road towards that article. Carcharoth 09:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously unencyclopedic and unnotable. Eusebeus 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. This is an encyclopedia, for Jimbo's sake. This article is not what encyclopedias are made of. WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS for the process wonks who need a policy pointing at. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-sourced and thorough. It is worth the effort to develop good articles on business topics. AfDs of business articles do properly (in my view) need to take into account the quality of the writing and the choice of material to include in the article. This one clearly meets the standards that I would use. EdJohnston 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well sourced from primary sources and press releases and thorough in the sense of detail in excess of what is appropriate in a general encycloapedia. We are mirroring BK's website content for no obvious purpose. Who is likely to look up bruger king menu items on Wikipedia rather than BK's website? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Any reader of any of the articles listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Burger_King_menu_items, for starters. Neier 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I must respond to Guy's assertions about the article: sources like The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, USA Today and The New York Times are not primary sources. These all are by definition reliable, secondary sources because the cited articles are not just reprints of press releases, but accompanied articles that help define the issue and put it in context of the way they affect the public and business world in a disinterested way - just like WP:IS requires. Also, according to WP:NOR primary sources can be used if (1) the primary source is only used to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims - exactly how the information gleaned from BK published data is used. In addition, with information on demographic targeting and controversies such as animal welfare and health, this is more than just a mirror of the BK website. Last time I looked at a BK menu page it did not use The Triple Whopper, a sandwich targeted at 18-34 year old males that has been cited by numerous groups as having high levels trans-fat, cholesterol and calories which helps to contribute to the ongoing obesity crisis in America as a descriptor of its products.
Jeremy (Jerem43 14:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep for reasons detailed by several others already. Sorry but the vitriol coming out of (some of) the delete voters is simply pathetic. violet/riga (t) 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems like a 'how-to start your own resurant menu' to me. Although the Resurant chain may be notable, what is notable about a resturant menu (ie. notability is not inherited)? (McD's menu should also get this too) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any good reasons to delete. Most of the deletion reasons above are based on WP:NOT and subjective measurements of what an encyclopedia should be. There is nothing in WP:NOT that has anything to do with this article. Nothing. --- RockMFR 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable, harmless, people are interested in it. And before someone's violent kneejerk causes them to link to one of those WP:MINDLESSAFDINSULTS shortcuts, note that "harmless" and "interesting" arguments are only bad if they are being used to justify including problematic content. Verifiable content that doesn't harm anyone isn't problematic... Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, I feel our goal is to be as informative as possible to all our readers, not to just be a cheap Britannica knockoff with endless copyright flamewars. --W.marsh 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move +redirect I think it is encylcopedically written, and quite well at that too; the only unencylcopedicic thing might be the title. "Menu items" provokes people's anti-listcruft instincts. "Burger King menu products" would be better. That goes for MacDo too obviously.--Victor falk 20:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been brought up by other 'keep' users before, and I also don't see what part of WP:NOT this article is violating. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 23 September 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.