Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonalds fruit and walnut salad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McDonalds fruit and walnut salad

I can't really see this page going anywhere, certainly not more than a dictdef, and it's not at all encyclopedic as it stands. UkPaolo 19:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing to keep. -- BD2412 talk 19:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Going nowhere. Delete. Similar to the Mashed potatoes and gravy article. Comment made by Celestianpower (talk • contribs)
Yes, one of a series of pointless articles by User:Historicperson -- UkPaolo 19:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several hundred hits on Google [1], launched by Venus Williams [2], commented on MSNBC [3], the Seattle Times [4]. --Edcolins 20:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm... it does appear you've actually re-formatted it into a decent stub! It could stay on as such, I suppose, but given it's got little chance of future expansion, surely the info can be merged to the McDonalds page? I'll stick with a delete vote. UkPaolo 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it seems Kappa didn't like your prediction: "it's got little chance of future expansion." --Edcolins 20:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even as a fast food item, I don't see it as notable. --Xcali 20:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McDonald's. Ridethefire3211 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable menu item, with a significant impact on nutrition for many Americans, and on apple, grape, walnut and dairy producers. Kappa 22:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or let's just delete ALL articles about food! How's that? Ketsuban (is 1337) 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • fallacy of the excluded middle Uncle G 00:08, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
      • I think the implication is that Ketsuban sees no reasonable criteria allowing deletion of this article but retention of any other articles about food. Kappa 00:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That would be unimaginative, if true. Reasonable criteria that would do so are relatively easy to imagine. ("Keep basic foodstuffs like peach and meals that have existed for over 100 years but not fast food restaurant menu items" would be one such criterion, for example.) I'm not convinced that that was the implication, however. It's certainly hard to read such an implication into the actual words there before us, which read more plainly as a straight dichotomy comprising "keep all articles about food" and "delete all articles about food", with no middle allowed. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable item on the menu of the world's most notorious restaurant, part of a major marketing campaign. Xoloz 00:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its an interesting little article. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per what Xoloz said -CunningLinguist 01:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep despite the hyperbole of some other keep votes. Gamaliel 03:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless MacDonald's is paying for the advertising. --Wetman 03:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (reluctant) Keep. As a generic item, I'd vote delete, but this is pretty specific, and does seem to represent an actual change in direction for McD. Too tangental for inclusion in the main article, and we're not running out of paper. --Unfocused 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and free advertising for McDonalds. JamesBurns 05:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't think McDonalds has the only "fruit and walnut salad" in the world, so having their concoction under the title is basically an ad for their product. I mean, isn't Waldorf Salad a fruit and walnut salad (with another ingredient or two)? This really should not stay as is, but some of this could be mentioned somewhere. I don't really know what to call this vote except a not keep. -R. fiend 05:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After some thought, I'm starting to lean towards a redirect to Waldorf Salad as the most notable form of a fruit and walnut salad. Since this is rather similar to Waldorf Salad, and clearly inspired by it, we could include a mention of it there and a link to McDonalds menu items where most of this article could be moved (although it currently reads sort of Consumer Reports-like, which I'm not so sure is ideal). Such an article could also house the current contents of the likes of Big Mac and Chicken McNuggets, as well as others. -R. fiend 15:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment R. fiend has a good point; this really should be moved to a McDonalds-specific title. Or moved/merged into an article McDonalds menu items, which could catalog the various menu items around the world. This could be very interesting to see, all in one place, how fast food translates across different cultures. Unfocused 05:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The Waldorf Salad contains mayo and celery, and also began as a commercial product, bearing the name of a famous serving establishment. This is a distinct salad, also a commercial product, sold by a merchant as famous (or infamous) today as Waldorf's was in the past. To me, the Waldorf precedent supports a keep, and I stand by my vote above. Xoloz 17:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This one has a mayo substitute, albeit no celery; it is clearly an adaptation of the other. And to compare a product that was released a month ago with something that has been around for a century is just plain ridiculous. The Waldorf Salad has entered the lexicon; McDonalds fruit and walnut salad has not, and likely never will. At the very least this needs to be moved to a McDonalds specific title and disambiguated, because having a general food item like this indicate a specific menu item at a spcific restaurant is basically promoting McDonalds. -R. fiend 17:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • As you'd expect, I don't find my contention "ridiculous." :) To my mind, McDonald's is (unfortunately) sufficiently powerful and ubiquitous such that any product they release, with major fanfare as a new marketing strategy centerpiece, is almost immediately notable (even if it fails -- see New Coke.) This article isn't advertising; it reflects the (sad) reality that these commercial product releases are notable in American life, pathetic though that may be. Xoloz 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I hardly think anything Mcdonalds sells in inherently encyclopedic (and just about every product they release is marketed with great fanfare). The notion that if someone advertizes something sufficiently it belongs in an encyclopedia is a flawed notion: it would make an encyclopia would be be just another ad. I'm sure it took many years for Waldorf Salad (something quite new) to become widely known and popular enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I hardly think McDonalds stealing the idea 100 years later puts them on the fast track. I've watched quite a bit of TV recently, I'm sorry to say, and I had not yet heard of this new item. That's hardly surprising, as fast food chains put out about a new item every few minutes and it's easy to ignore them. I think this article is indicitive of the tendency for people to write articles on everything as it appears without any regard of greater significance, while disregarding more important things of the past. Nevertheless, I would not entirely object to much of the content of this article being mentioned elsewhere, but currently it's the equivalent of finding an article on the KFC bucket meal when one types "fried chicken". -R. fiend 18:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't mind a separate article on McDonald's Coporate Response to Health Concerns, although with a much better title. I don't think that just putting this in a general menu article does justice to the circumstances surrounding its creation -- that McDonald's has been publicly embarrassed/pressured into altering their marketing. Xoloz 19:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main article or create a new article to hold all of McDonalds menu choices. Is the feelings of providers verifiable? Vegaswikian 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has been improved greatly. Andrew pmk 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To be honest, I find the idea of articles on one month old fast food restaurant menu items to be absolutely idiotic. I'm sure McDonalds appreciates the advertising, though. McDonalds has a few items that are culturally important (for example Big Mac and Quarter Pounder) that deserve articles. The cultural importance of Fruit and walnut salad is zero, and will probably remain zero forever. Quale 06:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: well, I am amazed to find that people have actually managed to rewrite this article to such a high standard. The current content should, of course, be kept. My one reservation now with leaving the article as is, is as per R. Fiend - this is a global encyclopedia, and McDonalds do not have the only Fruit and walnut salad. That is a generic term, and if the article is to remain, should be made more generic. Maybe what would be more appropriate is to move to a Fruit and walnut salad (McDonalds) page, and create a list of McDonalds menu items (as described above). Fruit and walnut salad could contain generic blurb about what one is, and mention McDo listing it, linking accordingly. I would agree with Quale, however, that this is ultimately rather un-notable, and free advertising for McDo as it stands... he's right that the cultural importance is probably zero. However, we're not exactly runnin out of space, so I see no reason to totally remove this content now it's been re-written... we just need to decide where to put it! UkPaolo 07:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea, Kappa. UkPaolo 08:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It works for Windows. I think you should go ahead and do it. There's still no harm if it gets deleted. If you do it by first moving this article to the McD specific one, then editing the redirect to change it to a disambig, I think that preserves the edit record properly. --Unfocused 14:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yay for Kappa! I also like this idea. Xoloz 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved as per Kappa, Unfocused & Xoloz to McDonalds fruit and walnut salad... I hope no-one objects to this. It's still got it's VfD box, and can still be deleted depending on the outcome of the vote. I'll create a disambig page at Fruit and walnut salad... perhaps people might like to re-consider their votes now? I was certainly proved wrong in saying that there was "little chance for future expansion" UkPaolo 15:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that UkPaolo, I think that answers one of the main objections. Kappa 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Even the Neanderthals knew fruit and walnuts, and ate them, I suppose. Why should homo sapiens sapiens (the wisest man of all times) need an encyclopedic explanation? I hope, Fast Food hasn´t made man that stupid, yet. Delete. Mami 16:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt if the Neanderthals used calcium ascorbate to preserve their fruit, but I could be wrong. Kappa 16:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • heh :o) UkPaolo 19:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. McDonalds didn't invent the fruit and walnut salad like they did the Big Mac, and we shouldn't be providing them with free advertising space. What's next, McDonalds large Coke? Eliot 19:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.