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

In-N-Out Burger menu items

A detailed analysis of a fast-food restaurant's menu is trivia -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as indiscriminate collection of information --Action Jackson IV 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list. Trivia. Barely sourced. Over the top. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of information and barely sourced. Oyster guitarist 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I would point out that this 'list' is inclusive of menu items, making in discriminate. Indiscriminate means random. the_undertow ^talk 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - within the larger context of Wikipedia, yes, this information is indiscriminate. Refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and keep in mind that any of those examples (FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics, and/or news reports) would themselves be inclusive of some other subset. I don't think an article could be literally "indiscriminate" without failing CSD G1 - General Nonsense. --Action Jackson IV 03:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as a space-saving fork from the parent article, it is not indiscriminate in the larger context of Wikipedia, as it was forked for a reason, and is a tangent to a larger article. the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't understand where on WP:NOT#IINFO you feel this article belongs. None of the examples fit, and in any case, many of them explicitly state that the solution to the problem is editing to an appropriate style, not deletion. As I said below, instead of blindly referring to policy, I'm going to ask that you articulate your objection more expressly. Mister.Manticore 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless WP:NOT#INFO explicitly mentions "lists of menu items from In-N-Out Burger", how about WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - specifically, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.". Current schedules are to radio stations as current items on the menu are to fast food resturaunts. --Action Jackson IV 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I understand why the editors of the main article wanted this list out of it. It didn't belong there any more than in its own article. — Coren ^(talk) 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to the unsubstantiated claims given above that this is an indiscriminate information, it's hardly anything of the sort on its face. It's clearly describing the product line of a given restaurant chain. This article is not a FAQ, PLOT Summary, Lyrics, raw statistics or a news report. All of those examples are found at WP:IINFO. None of them are applicable here. Trivia does not apply either, since this is hardly a long list of loosely related information. At most, trivia is a reason for cleanup anyway, not deletion. (And I wouldn't call this page a detailed analysis of the menu anyway). It's obviously describing the products of this company in the same way many other pages do. See previous discussion involving McDonald's. You might convince me to merge this back into the parent company, but there's no way this information shouldn't be present in some form on Wikipedia. Especially not when the complaints made against it are not backed with strong arguments explaining why. Really, isn't covering the individual menu of a restaurant chain an obvious thing to include in some form? Mister.Manticore 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; well, simply put, no. I can't think of a single reason why the menu of a restaurant chain should be included at all unless the menu itself is notable for some reason. Have some independent, reliable sources discussed the menu itself? (That, by the way, is the case for McD's). And while as a rule notability isn't transitive, there are implications that cannot be denied. Or are you arguing that In-N-Out is anywhere near McDonadl's in notability? — Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The menu is notable, as the article says for its simplicity (3 items) and for the 'secret' ordering process. It is the topic of many sources available online. the_undertow ^talk 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "stripping naked and dancing around the burger while praying to your dark gods" Now that's my idea of service (some of the time anyway)! Clarityfiend 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Not going to fly. The argument so far has not been primarily based on the question of sources (sources have come up only as a secondary concern). The arguments for deletion have been focused on different issues, which would exist regardless of sources. If you wish to argue for notability, then I'd point out that In-N-Out burger is a reasonably notable chain of restaurants. As such, it would be quite silly to imagine you wouldn't cover its menu in writing about it. If you wish to ask for better sources, that'd be a fair question for improving the page, but not for deleting. And here's one [1]. Here's a few more that indicate the menu of the company is relevant. [2][3]. Somebody else can probably find more. [4] gets plenty of hits, but so many are subscription, I don't feel like looking for them. As for the question as to whether or not this chain is more or less important than McDonald's? That's irrelevant. They clearly meet any reasonable threshold for inclusion since they're on the R&I Top 400 list. [5]. Mister.Manticore 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find blogs (not, to my knowledge, that blogs of any sort constitute reliable sources) that mention the catalogue of Wal-Mart, or the number of back-hairs on Joe Don Baker's body. Wal-Mart's catalogue can be mentioned within Wal-Mart (example, "Wal-Mart is known for an eclectic selection of merchandise, including, but not limited to, (item) (item) and (item)), and Joe Don Baker's back-hairs can likewise be mentioned within the main Joe Don Baker article. No need for Wal-Mart catalogue items or, God forbid, back hair on Joe Don Baker. Sourcing has nothing to do with it - WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#INFO. Also, see WP:USEFUL. --Action Jackson IV 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid fork from parent article. Is not indiscriminate, as it is a tangent to a larger article. Sourced. Notable as per links above. the_undertow ^talk 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a list of items sold by a vendor? Imagine how long Items sold by Wal-Mart would be. I would classify this under "indiscriminate collection of information" Corpx 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart is a retailer that offers thousands of items (if not tens of thousands) in a single store from a variety of manufacturers. It would be unreasonable to try to create an article describing all of them because the scope would be far too-encompassing. This is more comparable to the products of a company like Toyota, Microsoft, P&G or well, Wal-Mart itself. I doubt any restaurant's menu would compare to the wide scope of a Wal-Mart's inventory. If it did, this would be a more valid objection. Mister.Manticore 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but what if you restrict it to only the Wal-Mart brand (generic) items sold by wal-mart? Corpx 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't restricted - it's complete. the_undertow ^talk 05:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a follow up to my earlier comparison about products sold by Wal-Mart. User:Mister.Manticore brought up the point that wal-mart sells products made by other manufacturers, so I narrowed my earlier comparison to just products sold by walmart that are made by (for) walmart. Corpx 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to re-read what I wrote as your reply doesn't seem to address what I said very well. I'm certainly not understanding why you're asking that question. Mister.Manticore 05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that you cant exclude "List of products produced and sold by wal-mart" solely because of the sheer size. I dont think the
Wal-Mart does make its own products that it markets. Its listed at List of Wal-Mart brands I dont think such a list of products would be appropriate for an encyclopedia either Corpx 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, obviously I disagree. I think the list is a highly useful one that identifies the products made by the company (or made for it rather). Why wouldn't you include it? Try to take a step back from the Wal-Mart issue (why that always comes up I don't know) and look at the other examples instead. Mister.Manticore 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A menu is like a sales catalog, and the article reads like a how-to guide for ordering burgers.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with everything stated above, what's notable about a burger joint selling burgers? Only referenced by the store's own material. Article seems more like a dare or prank. Vespid 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because that's what they do? Not covering their line of business in some form would be rather silly, to the point where I wonder why folks are even making this argument. Would you suggest not mentioning a pro football players sports career? An artist's works of art? I suppose it's reasonable to differ with regards to the extent of coverage, but that's not the question here. That said, if you're curious about what people find notable about In-N-Out, maybe you'd care to read some of the sources already mentioned. Mister.Manticore 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - consider that this was split out of the original In n Out Burger article, and that these items in some cases are part of the cult following. I really want to vote keep, but that would admittedly be an WP:ILIKEIT vote - so I shall abstain. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't think of this AFD as a vote, but rather as an opportunity to share your views, whatever they may be. If there is indeed discussion of the cult following of this burger chain, which includes the menu, then that would be a valid reason to keep. Mister.Manticore 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of 'in-n-out cult' will turn up many sites that document the menu and ordering process as part of the phenomena. the_undertow ^talk 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think any of them are reliable sources though. Corpx 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Reliability seems to be an issue with that search, however I did provide links above to the Herald Extra and New York Times. the_undertow ^talk 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want mainstream news sources, search the Google News Archive [6]. First result listed is from the New York Times. If you'd prefer to read about In-N-Out Burger's Secret Menu in Chinese, try this article from the World Journal. — VulcanOfWalden 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better Just in this weeks New York Times there is article on McDonalds menu. [7] Menus are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not so much about the McDonalds menu, but fits into a series the NYT has been doing on obesity in our society, and uses McDonalds as just one example (it also mentions Burger King and Wendy's). It is also one installment of a new, monthly column about the food and beverage industry. In that context, it makes sense. If this were WikiFood, it might make sense here too, but even then, such "information" as For eat-in orders, the bottom patty is placed on top of a burger wrapper, alternating meat, cheese, meat, cheese would surely have to be classified as cult trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge into Parent The only thing particularly notable is the "secret" menu, which is easily sourced. The rest of the article can be basically summed up as "they make burgers and fries using quality ingredients". While this sort of trivia may be useful to some, it's still largely advertising/marketing. The secret menu, however, is notable simply because it is "secret". It can be sourced from in-n-out's own website, so it is official in nature and should be given a list on the main in-n-out page. But it does not deserve a forked page of its own. Otto42 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]