Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halal snack pack

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 keep. Never close this early however as proven below it meets GNG and was at DYK so it's obviously not going to be deleted (And always a massive thanks to Northamerica1000 for finding sources), Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Halal snack pack

Halal snack pack (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)

Notability questionable, article consists mostly of coverage about a Facebook page dedicated to the appreciation of this dish, and contains, for example: "Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group."

I can't resolve this with the other editors on the page, because they revert me and remove maintenance tags. Laber□^T 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The article is written entirely upon what reliable sources state, which is what Wikipedia content is based upon. The nominator does not like what reliable sources report about the topic, but please note that Wikipedia is not censored (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Per discussion on the article's talk page and in the nomination here, the nominator here appears to have a strong non-neutral point-of-view regarding the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• Romaine, Rose (April 6, 2016). "The Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society Is Uniting Australia With Kebab Meat". Vice. Retrieved April 30, 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "Senator rates halal snack pack a 10". Sky News Australia. March 17, 2016. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• "Pilgrims heading for Halal snack pack Mecca". Daily Telegraph. March 11, 2016. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• Safi, Michael; Hunt, Elle; Wall, Josh (April 18, 2016). "The halal snack pack: a fast track to a heart attack? Or worse?". the Guardian. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• "Halal snack pack: bridging cultures or a recipe for radicalisation? – video". the Guardian. July 3, 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• "Your Local Kebab Shop Is Now Trending, Introducing Your New Facebook Group Obsession". MTV. March 14, 2016. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• "Where is Adelaides Best AB?". WeekendNotes. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• Peters, Peters (February 16, 2016). "The Facebook group where kebab lovers rate their ultimate snack pack". Daily Mail. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
• "The AB at Blue & White Café North Adelaide". Gourmantic. January 24, 2011. Retrieved April 30, 2016.

• I cannot understand your NPOV concern, I merely stated that this is just another social media phenomenon with the typical "flash in the pan" effect. --Laber□^T 12:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• You state atop in your nomination that the article "contains, for example: Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group." It comes across that you don't like this notion, since you're basing your deletion nomination in part based upon what the sources state, which is properly verified in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, because that seems like "house rules" that Facebook pages or other social media groups tend to have, and these are things that are not for Wikipedia articles, because these rules are not relevant to the subject and can be changed at any time by any group admin. --Laber□^T 13:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reliable sources have already reported the information; it's irrespective whatever happens at the Facebook group page; Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state. See also WP:BELONG and WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Also, on the talk page, you stated, "Yeah, but writing who donated something for whom, who supports Halal food, and that users are banned for putting certain things on their food (!) is not something that should belong in a Wikipedia article." (diff, bold emphasis mine). As such, you come across as not liking what reliable sources state about the topic, so you nominated it for deletion. Hopefully this explains the NPOV concerns I have with your actions thus far. Again, see WP:BELONG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, because the first one is not notable (many groups, movements or corporations donate money, this should only be included if unusually significant), the second one should go to Halal food if it improves the article, and the third one is just ridiculous. --Laber□^T 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• You come across as thinking that every sentence in the article needs to qualify for it's own separate article per WP:N. This is not how it works. See WP:V, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". Thus far, you have only provided subjective proof by assertion arguments based upon your personal opinions, rather than discussing the coverage the topic has received in reliable sources and how this relates to WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank You for telling me how to formulate this right, so far I've felt a little lost here. Here comes my review of the references: "Case Studies in Food Microbiology for Food Safety and Quality" tells what the meat used will likely consist of, but of course not referencing the product because it was written in 2002. That is OK, so we know the contents, but of course has nothing to do with the notability. "Your Local Kebab Shop Is Now Trending, Introducing Your New Facebook Group Obsession": the video autoplay really caught me off-guard here, ouch. To me, this does not seem like a good source, because it is really just some content slapped together and given a chic title in order to attract clicks. "The halal snack pack: a fast track to a heart attack? Or worse?": they say that this dish isn't something new, OK that indicates some notability. However, the article doesn't tell us much about the subject in question, the last three paragraphs are just about Halal certification in general. There is also an indication that this article is hastly written: It contains the racist remark "signalling a kind of stubborn 'whiteness' that no amount of shredded meat can overcome.". "Senator rates halal snack pack a 10": This does not seem to add much notability, some senator ate the dish and found it to taste very good, I don't know... "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society makes pilgrimage to snack pack ‘Mecca’, King Kebab House": This asserts some notability, however it is just a local news site, and you can really see that by the crappy Photoshop they did. "Halal snack pack: bridging cultures or a recipe for radicalisation? – video": That is the video to the Guardian article. Indicates that they did some research. The three other references concern the "Adelaide AB", which may be similar to the Halal snack pack, but it has not been established that this is really the same thing or at least something similar enough to go into the same article. "Halal, is it meat you're looking for? Hilarious Facebook group where kebab lovers rate their ultimate meat, chips, sauce and cheese combos (and mock far-right groups calling for a boycott of halal food)": Just a report on the Facebook page, meh. "The Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society Is Uniting Australia With Kebab Meat" same as the last one, but at least this includes some info on the controversy surrounding Halal slaughter, which may be used to expand the article to include different viewpoints. Overall, I think there is some notability, but I'm not sure if enough to keep the article. It should also be determined wether this "AB" dish really is the same, or even similiar (it seems to not be Halal after all). --Laber□^T 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Clearly notable, as it is covered in multiple independent sources. My only caveat is that the other variants of the dish do not warrant their own articles and all variants should be discussed here, like "Adelaide AB" (the expansion of the acronym is rather nasty and should only be made if it is sourced). To the other editors here, please note that per WP:AFDFORMAT it is more productive to state arguments for keeping or deleting in your own response rather than making assertions about the validity of other editors' responses, as far as is possible. Roches (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. This well-referenced article clearly meets the requirement for significant coverage in independent sources. I am familiar with this article from its submission at DYK, and can see that it is start-class, awaiting further expansion. That is, the lead contains all the information about the halal snack pack. Other editors could choose to expand on this with additional information about the snack pack itself. Then the supplementary sections of "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society" and "Similar dishes" would not stand out so sharply and seem to "take over" the article. Don't demolish the house while it's in the process of being built. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (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.