Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 4 December 2012

Chili burger

Chili burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good grief, Seriously this is a DicDef it it is anything at all. Do we really want this in what is meant to be a serious encyclopaedia? Oh sorry. Notable Schmotable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Seriously, dude, you're giving us deletionists a bad name. The article isn't sourced as of yet, but I'm 110% sure there's more than enough information out there to pass GNG. pbp 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like you have bothered with it since you created it in August 2011. Go on then. Prove it to be notable! It's still a dicdef. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hamburger. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick search turned up 25 Google Scholar references pbp 00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. And not one of those 25 Google Scholar references you say you found is cited.Blue Riband► 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Found and reliable's all you need for WP:V pbp 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above,[REDACTED] is not a dictionary. ˜danjel  01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I vehemently disagree with almost every aspect of this nomination for deletion and the subsequent comments made by the nominators. First off, the implication that the page creator is somehow obligated to expand the article is almost as ludicrous as it is offensive; Misplaced Pages is about collaboration, not about one person creating a page and immediately bringing it up to GA status. Deletion is not a mechanism for cleanup; see WP:NEGLECT, WP:INVOLVE, and WP:UGLY, these problems are certainly surmountable. Additionally, remember that there is no deadline. I am baffled by the nomination and highly doubt that the requirements of WP:BEFORE were met. A quick Google News search turns up hundreds of reviews, and shows that chili burgers are the specialization of several restaurants that have opened up in places that are covered by a newspaper. That covers notability, there are no copyright violation issues, no one's disputing the content's factuality, so verifiability is not a concern, and it's not a BLP, so looking at the reasons for deletion shown here, Misplaced Pages's deletion policy, I see no earthly reason for which this should be deleted. I will stipulate that it's not much of an article as is right now, but that's a reason for expansion and collaboration, not deletion. Deleting an article because it isn't very well-developed would be like kicking a first-grader out of primary school because he struggles adding and subtracting, these problems can be fixed. Well, to summarize, keep the article and expand it, don't delete it. Go Phightins! 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The comes up a lot too. Doesn't deserve its own article though. ˜danjel  02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Respectfully disagree Go Phightins. This is an unreferenced, one line article which says what the item is but doesn't state why it is notable. I could understand some mercy towards a newbie but the author has 12K edits(!) Blue Riband► 03:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because an article doesn't state why it's notable doesn't mean the subject can't be, like I believe this topic is...WP:GNG seems to be met. Go Phightins! 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there should be an independent article on every type of burger concoction a person can devise, but I can also see potential for more than a tiny little definition. My thinking is that this article could be incorporated into a "list of burger varieties" article that covers all the noteworthy variations. When it comes to food varieties we should set the bar exorbitantly high for articles on any given variation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the "bar" should be either a) a "supervariety", like "chili dog" (chili dog is a variety of hot dog, but there are varieties of chili dog) or b) something you'd be fairly likely to find in any American diner or coffee shop, or the foreign equivalent. For the record, I consider chili size/chili burger to meet either of those criteria, but there are a lot of more oblique foods that don't pbp 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I have done some work on the article and feel pretty comfortable now that the subject is notable, even if the initial stub did not make that apparent. The reason we have an entire category on Hamburgers is because a number of these variations are culturally significant.--Milowent • 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ah, the alleged wisdom of crowds. The article on Dog shit redirects to a wiser article. And the wisdom ~incoherent giggle~ of crowds wnats to keep Chili burger. It is so well worth fighting to retain! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't hide your own ignorance of the cultural value of chili burgers amidst the crowds, Fiddle. Much of what is notable in the world may not subjectively be "worthy" to you, but you're not God. But just because a Jucy Lucy is delicious does not mean it should be deleted.--Milowent • 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's another article that seems ripe for an AfD. Original research, limited scope of interest (just to people from Minnesota?), no claims to notability, doesn't appear to have great sourcing. ˜danjel  12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, spend a few hours researching it first, and you may conclude otherwise. This is how I learn that unusual things like a pet parrot can be notable.--Milowent • 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

While it might be interesting, I think the bar for notability is completely arbitrary. If Chili Burger and Jucy Lucy, then why not, for example, Middle Harbour Public School, for example? The latter is resulted in a legislative change across a state, is one of the top ranked schools in Australia, and it still wasn't notable enough. ˜danjel  15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates