Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger secret menu

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 delete. Sr13 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-N-Out Burger secret menu

In-N-Out Burger secret menu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a menu. What is contained on their secret menu is laughably unencyclopedic. Article also contradicts itself at several points, for example the line stating A few of these variations are detailed on the company's web site for all to see. In that case, how is it secret? Also as per the WP:RECENT Ten Year Rule, such information would never be notable ten years later. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As WP:RECENT is not policy nor a guideline, it cannot be used to justify AFD. No opinion on this article either way. 23skidoo 11:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't using WP:RECENT as a justification for deletion. I was simply stating my belief that this article has no long-term encyclopedic value, hence the example of the 10 Yr Rule.xC | ☎ 14:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Psst, it's a secret. You're not supposed to tell anyone. Trust me, if they find out they'll place you on double-secret probation. Better hit the delete button before anybody sees it. On a more serious note, as 23skidoo pointed out, WP:RECENT isn't policy (nor do I think it ever should be). This article suffers from three main problems, as far as I can see. First, it's inherently not notable. It's about a lunch menu that doesn't even physically exist (no doubt that it's real as a concept). You could sum most of the content up with "if you're nice, even most fast food place will prepare your food the way you like it; here are some ideas". Granted, this isn't your average NFT article and in a way, it's actually pretty sapid, if you'll forgive the double entendre. Second, some parts are just way too trivial. In fact, that goes for most of the 'Items on the menu' section, which is the very subject of the article. "Fries light", "Fries well"? Please. Unless they're making a fresh bash, you're getting the ones they have. And if you get your fries just like you want them, that's plain and simple good customer service which most likely doesn't have anything to do with some 'secret menu'. In any case, whether you can get your fries regular or extra-crispy is trivial and shouldn't be the subject of an encyclopedic article. Third, there's only one source which is the company's website. And even that explicitly mentions 'just plain [excellent] customer service', which is exactly what this is. The thing is, parts of this are appropriate for the main article, provided that they're (re)written in a neutral tone and condensed. Since there's already a section about the 'secret menu', there isn't really a whole lot of information that could reasonably be merged into it. For those three reasons, I think deleting the article is the way to go (kind of a shame since it looks like a lot of work has gone into this article). -- Seed 2.0 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment While a page on this Burger company's menu may be reasonable (see McDonald's menu items which was kept in a recent AFD), I think calling anything a "secret" menu is a bit much. Perhaps removing the secret from the title and moving some content on their "basic" menu into the article? Or maybe just coverage in the basic page on this burger company? FrozenPurpleCube 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you did mention, there's already a section in the main article that deals with the In-N-Out menu which specifically mentions the 'secret menu' (the company itself uses that term in PR material, by the way, so while it may be somewhat cheesy, it's definitely not made up). -- Seed 2.0 13:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know McDonald's menu items existed :P If this page was converted to that form, that might still be alright, perhaps... most of the content could be shifted into In-N-Out's menu items alongwith stuff from the basic menu. Genuinely, it does seem like a lot of work has gone into it so it would be a shame to delete it, but I nom'd it for AfD since I thought such articles weren't supposed to be there. Agree with Mister Manticore, if its alright to have a menu items list for McDonald's, I guess In-N-Out could have a similar listing as well (its well illustrated too :P) xC | ☎ 14:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else has said to delete, you can withdraw this nomination and move the article yourself, or just propose it on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 14:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry but this very clearly not speediable (unless you mean to imply that my comment above can be discounted -- in that case, I'd ask you to please explain your rationale). -- Seed 2.0 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean nobody has said to delete? Seed 2.0 above !voted delete (I think deleting the article is the way to go). However, looking at the page McDonald's menu items, I believe this page could be reformatted, and with a cleanup might even be a good addition to the main article. I offer to do the cleanup and merging, could someone guide me how to withdraw an AfD (unless anyone objects to withdrawing it)?xC | ☎ 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My pardons, I'll explain. I read Seed's comment as partially a joke, given that in the context, it seemed well, to be a humorous start to an otherwise extended comment that was concerned with listing the issues with this information, but open to use of it, given the statement that it could be rewritten and used on the main article. But doesn't matter now, other people are saying delete, though I think they might want to look over the situation again. It seems they're taking this as "secret" as opposed to "low-profile" . FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll say Delete - if this is a secret, how can there be sources for it? Besides, isn't this likely to vary by outlet and how busy they happen to be at any given time? Doesn't warrant an entry any more than the Burger King article needs separate sections for Whopper, Whopper (no mayo) and Whopper (extra cheese, no pickle) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC
  • Well, the Coca-Cola formula is officially a secret, but it qualifies for an article. However, in this case, the secretness seems to be a marketing gimmick, not an actual secret, so it's a non-issue. FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This is a hoax, or a marketing trick, and good luck sourcing it properly. Useight 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A secret menu? The thing is, the only reliable references for this article probably would be locked up in a safe somewhere. IN-N-Out may be a notable burger chain, but speculation of their food's contents hasn't reached notable status as that of Coca-cola.--Kylohk 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Slight merge back into the main article about this restaurant chain at In-N-Out Burger#The "Secret" menu. This "secret menu" article is unusually redundant, in that it lists and describes most of the items and then describes them again in prose. Also, there is no real "secret" to these menu items, since the main ones are listed on the official corporate web site [1]. There are potential references for the content although they are not necessarily consistent as to how "secret" the menu is; see the New York Times and American Public Radio's Marketplace for example. --Metropolitan90 17:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, WP:RECENT is completely inapplicable here. The idea of a "secret menu" at In-N-Out Burger has already existed for more than 10 years. The New York Times article cited above is from 2002, and here is a Usenet posting from 1997 referring to the secret menu. (And here are more reliable sources: the Washington Post and Business 2.0/cnn.com.) --Metropolitan90 17:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In my nom I just gave the ten year rule as a reasonable way to judge whether a piece of content has long term encyclopedic value or not. I linked to WP:RECENT since the idea of the 10 yr rule is mentioned there, even though I am aware that WP:RECENT isn't applicable here. The idea of the 10 yr rule and trying to decide whether or not this secret menu would be applicable a decade or more later, that is what I was trying to propose, not WP:RECENT per se. The idea of this secret menu may have existed since before 1997, but I am only wondering whether or not these permutations of the basic menu deserve place in an encyclopedia article or not... xC | ☎ 18:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, vaguely promotional tone, not really encyclopædic. Lankiveil 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC),
• Consider a merge to Diner lingo, although that article is in desperate need of cleanup, citation, and general revision itself. Serpent's Choice 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, so it's acknowledged that WP:RECENT isn't grounds for an AfD. Last time I checked "Wikipedia is not a menu" is not one of the listings in WP:NOT. So, what's the grounds for deletion here? As above, it's been on Marketplace, and I assume the NYT reference is OK. While it might benefit by having the article pared away from simply In-&-Out and providing them free marketing, and into a more generic topic on secret menus in general, I don't see why this is an AfD. Keep. LaughingVulcan 02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • how many other secret menu articles do you know of?xC | ☎ 07:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I know of Secret Menu, been around since February. Right now the In-N-Out is split out as a link from that article. Maybe this article needs to be pared back and integrated into Secret Menu. At any rate, there's one, and now I'll dig a little further to see if there are any others. I hope that addresses your point. I haven't seen that mine has been: By what criteria is this an AfD nom? I can see that you might feel that the article is borderline not encyclopedic, but is there an AfD cat that you can fit that into? LaughingVulcan 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There's also a reference on the disambig page for 2x4 which references the In-N-Out 2 by 4, without a link. The Jamba Juice article references their secret menu in the article itself. -Forgot to add this was me, sorry!- LaughingVulcan 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your having a look at that. Honestly, I don't do much AfDing so I don't know the exact criteria, but I was thinking lacking notability and/or long-term encyclopedic value. Genuinely I don't know which cats that would fall under, your guidance would be appreciated.
      1. I raised the notability issue, since I believed we don't need to have all their menu items, let alone secret menu items. But now that I've seen theres something of that sort (list of mcdonald's menu items), I'm left wondering...
      2. The list of secret items has another problem - theres no guarantee that all these variants are available at all outlets. But then again, this might also be applicable to their basic menu.

      Like I said above, I believe theres no need to have an article about secret menu items as such. We could have an article In-N-Out's Menu Items (following McDonald's example). In that, integrate the content related to menu from the main article, and have a section Secret Items in that. I offered to withdraw this AfD nom earlier (see above), but now that some editors have !voted delete, that can't be done(?). xC | ☎ 05:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

      That might be possible, though it could be handier to simply re-integrate it into the main In-N-Out article, where there's already a subsection on their Secret Menu. Someone else would have to answer whether or not an AfD can be withdrawn-by-nominator after discussion (AFAIK I believe it can, under Be Bold if nothing else - though I don't know the mechanics of closing an AfD out.) I'm not sure that action is best, though, given that once nominated, the idea is to work towards a consensus. You never know, maybe on the fifth day someone comes through to make a clear argument against the flow that converts everyone else.... Besides, you can always let the debate play out and let the conclusion become No Consensus. That doesn't mean the question wasn't worth asking in the first place, either.

      At any rate, the best case I'd make for deletion is Not Original Thought // News, except that I was first introduced to the Double-Double and 2x4 prior to 1997, and it was described to me at the time as a "secret menu," so I doubt that WP:Neologism applies either. That's my best case for, and I can't actually support it, so that's why I went with Keep, though I'd be happy to see a Merge instead. LaughingVulcan 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

      Agree with you. Although I was the nominator for this AfD, I'd support a merge as well now; whether to a seperate page In-N-Out's Menu Items or to the main article itself, I'm fine by it either way. xC | ☎ 07:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

      Merge/Relocate Sounds right; changing my input from keep above. The more it comes to me, the more I believe it should be rolled. It seems like it would be weighty as it is if rolled back to the In-N-Out article. I like the "Menu Items" idea of yours. I think we should take this over to the talk pages of the main In-N-Out article and this article to see if there's any consensus there with which way to roll it. LaughingVulcan 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I live in California, where the secret menu is a big deal. Also, employees know of the secret menu, and they know how to ring it up on the register. Therefore, they are sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.210.196 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Note, this idea appeared in an article this week on secret menus at fast-food and other restaurants. I can't find the print version (I thought it was in the WSJ but am not certain) but I thought In-N-Out was mentioned by name. Here's a radio version transcript: [2]. JJL 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the main article already contains relevant information so no merge needed -- Whpq 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Having been to In-N-Out and having ordered from the secret menu, I can say without a doubt that this is an article Wikipedia needs to have. Were it not for this article, I wouldn't know about "protein-style" burgers... Isn't furthering knowledge what Wikipedia is all about? 24.0.147.173 23:41, 23 May 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.