- Burger King menu items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)
This article was deleted while an duplicate article for McDonald's was kept, and a second AfD request is leaning towards keeping by a factor of 2-1. The consensus on the McD's being kept was that the menus of large international chains are worthy of inclusion, thus this should apply to the BK version of the article. All information was fully verifiable by following any of the links provided in the article, as apposed to the claim of the deletor. Jerem43 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, closing is fine. Why did you pick this AfD to challenge instead of the McDonald's one? If your argument sums to "Look at this other AfD", it's entirely arbitrary which one to pick. -Amark moo! 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I should clarify my reasoning as to why the article should be reinstated: Since both articles are identical in subject, purpose and function, why was the McD's page kept while the BK page was deleted. The reasons that were stated in keeping the McD's article apply to the BK article. If the BK article was deleted as not being appropriate, so should the McD's. There should be a consistent policy. Jerem43 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then renominate the other for deletion. But the process for this AFD appears to be just fine. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, unfortunately wikipedia is inconsistent at times and we just have to deal with that fact and fix it up the best we can. Mathmo Talk 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is Inconsistent Sounds like a good topic for an essay, if one doesn't already exist. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- There used to be an essay on this topic. I can't remember if it was here or on Meta but I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I wish someone would post a link to it because I remember it as quite well written. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Close is fine, plus I agree with it. Listing menu items is surely the job of BK's own web team. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse close was clearly a correct interpretation of policy. Eluchil404 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse I don't see anything particularly wrong with the reasoning behind the close and it was based on the arguments given in the AFD. Just because a similar AFD concluded with a different result does not affect this AFD. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Valid close of a valid AFD. I note that the original McDonalds AFD which is referred to above was more than half a year ago, and that article is under AFD again. Standards change over time, and inconsistency is common in a wiki. See WP:INN for greater elucidation of this issue. GRBerry 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- While the original AFD may have been that long ago, this remains ongoing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak endorse While I'm not sure I totally agree with the result, the closure appears to be pretty much sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Nobody has yet explained to me how this is indiscriminate. This is the product line of a major company in the world. Why shouldn't we have an article on this subject? Is the section in the Burger King article that describes the products to be removed as well? If you don't feel there's a need for a separate article, why not a merge there? And are Whopper and the rest of the BK food articles going to be deleted? I'd prefer one article, but since these do exist something should be done. Whopper is probably notable enough, but the others? Even though I know the Meat'normous got media attention, I'd prefer a collected article. Sources? Anybody really believe that sources can't be found on the history and circumstances of a major international corporation's menu? Especially troubling when at least one contributor claims there were sources in the article. That would mean that at least half the reason for deletion was factually invalid. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion Review is not a place to reargue the debate. It is only to review the closing of the debate for inappropriateness or faulty judgment by the closing admin. --Farix (Talk) 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would be why I am arguing with the Admin's decision, which I content was faulty for the reasons I expressed. It is neither indiscriminate nor is the information unsourceable. Was that unclear to you? Did I express it wrong? How should I have said it? Your complaint makes no sense to me, but perhaps I am missing something. FrozenPurpleCube 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks more to me that your only "fault" with the closing is because the closing admin disagreed with your position once he evaluated the discussion. However, many of the delete
votes comments did cite policies to back up their positions while the majority of keeps mostly used variations of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, or WP:USEFUL arguments. Remember, the closing admin is there only to determine if there was a consensus based on well reasoned arguments, not to determine who has the better argument. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- My problem is that the closing admin's reason for deletion is factually untrue. This is not unverifable information, or original research. Thus WP:NOR and WP:V do not apply. Burger King's history is easily verified enough that I am satisfied with WP:RS as well. That leaves us with WP:NOT, and the chosen complaint was indiscriminate. I do not see any mention of what part of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE applies in either the closing reason or the discussion, and in fact, there was a widespread consensus that it was not indiscriminate, as it's no different than listing the cars made by Ford, the software made by Microsoft, or the drinks made by Coca-Cola. You can claim how other people made poor arguments if you want, but I think that WP:IDONTLIKEIT was more of a problem. Furthermore, I request that instead of complaining I'm not doing things right, you either explain the right way to do things(in other words, tell me how I can say what's wrong here, because I think it's clear there is something wrong with this decision, and if there is no way for a DRV to consider an admin's misinterpretation of a page or the consensus of discussion then DRV is fundamentally flawed), or try to convince me why I'm mistaken in my reading of the situation. Otherwise you're just going to waste both of our times. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the closing admin made a judgment on what he thought was consensus. If you disagree with the consensus, so be it. But it's pointless to continuing arguing about whether the article should be or shouldn't be deleted. And please don't come to my talk page and affectively tell me to butt out if I don't agree with you. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry you're offended, but I do wonder what would be the proper way to express my concerns. I believe the closing admin was wrong in deciding the consensus as they did. I explained why the facts are not on the side of the closing admin. You objected saying this isn't the proper place for that concern, or perhaps I didn't express it properly, I don't know. If you can neither explain why I'm mistaken or explain how I can express that concern better, then it's pointless to discuss it further, as it would just lead to acrimony. So far, you have only succeeded in further convincing me that DRV seems to be useless. That's not a good thing, is it? FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Sounds like an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to me. The McDonald's menu needs to go, too. JuJube 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: WP is not indiscriminate info. Semperf 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion on the grounds that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. I believe the McDonald's list should go to the garbage can too, but that doesn't change my view about this deletion, or the process that led to it. YechielMan 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, please remember that deletion review is about whether the process was followed, not about repeating the AfD all over again. The AfD was obviously a no consensus result, meaning that the deleting admin did not follow process when closing it as a keep. Restore the article (as Wikipedia always has kept no consensus decisions), wait a few weeks and renominate if wanted. That would be according to policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Consensus is reflected in policy and guideline, not a few editors who turn up for an xFD, AfD is not a vote for this reason among many. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- When soundly argumented, the votes by users who turn up for a specific AfD now and then are just as valid as those by users who spent all their time at AfD. If you would like any further discussion on this, please do this on my talk page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion I was pretty sure someone had recently cited some essay regarding the inconsistency that often occurs at wikipedia, but inconsistency alone is not reason for overturning this AfD. As others have noted, the inconsistency could be resolved by deleting the McD menu article. The AfD for this article was run and closed properly, I see no reason why it needs to be reopened. Agent 86 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and undelete Since the McDonald's AfD was closed as Keep, it would violate WP:NPOV to have this article remain deleted, unless it can be explained why McD's menu should be kept and BK's shouldn't. JuJube 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. There is no inconsistency--the McDonalds article is better, and that obviously influenced the AfD debate. There's nothing wrong with that. AfD is both a judgment of the topic and a judgment of the article as it stands--always has been, and really has to be to avoid keeping some incredibly bad articles. Chick Bowen 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. This was within reasonable admin discretion. The arguments that we must be consistent with the McDonalds page are incorrect. WP:INN applies. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|