Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago-style hot dog

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago-style hot dog

Delete. There is already a very fine page on Hot dogs which includes details on the Chicago-style hot dog as well as other hot dogs. Delete under: Indiscriminate Information. SilkTork 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, merge appears more in line with my intention. The Chicago hot dog is dealt with very well in the Hot Dog article. My point was not to delete all references to the Chicago hot dog - merely the separate article which mostly repeats what is said in the main article. SilkTork 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Chicago hot dog is more notable than the other hot dogs in that article. It would at least warrant additional coverage in that article, but I believe it warrants a separate article--particularly because of the relation to other Chicago cuisine and culture. --Karnesky 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with hot dogs. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not indiscriminate info! Why delete this over any of the other articles in Category:Chicago_cuisine? The Chicago dog probably ranks along-side Chicago pizza as the most significant (most common, most consumed, most known, and most unique) food to the City. It is claimed there are more hot dog stands in Chicago than McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Wendys combined. --Karnesky 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, and maybe a specific redirect page to hot dogs would be appropriate. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A Chicago-style hot dog is independently notable (It's come up as a tossup subject in mainstream quiz bowl; ergo, I think it deserves an article. --Andy Saunders 17:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, definitely notable enough to deserve its own article. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be said about it. Zagalejo 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Most likely the notable variation of hot dogs. This is a pretty good article, and a merge would just add clutter to the hot dog page as it is. Also is part of the culture of Chicago. youngamerican (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Silktork, if you call this indiscriminate information, then check out Category:The Price is Right pricing games. If this was a short stub I'd say merge. As it is, more or less 27 registered users would want this speedily kept. --Perfecto 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously its own entity, as distinct from other hot dogs. Longer than a stub already. Logophile 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable cuisine. The "indiscriminate information" argument doesn't work in this case. 23skidoo 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. famous. Rhobite 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is your grand achievement on a culinary scale? How underwhelming. --Agamemnon2 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge its a hotdog fer chrissakes.... Jcuk 11:43, 7 February 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.