Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. That's "keep" meaning "don't delete the information", if anyone still wants to propose a merge, now or later, they may do so on the article's talk page. - filelakeshoe 13:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chili burger

[edit]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found and reliable's all you need for WP:V pbp 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge- Per above, wikipedia is not a dictionary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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; Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia'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)[reply]
The comes up a lot too. Doesn't deserve its own article though. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 • hasspoken 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comments about other things and some mudslinging NE Ent 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 • hasspoken 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 [ talk | contribs ] 12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 • hasspoken 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. It just had the misfortune of being one of a couple of hundred primary schools that was nominated in an almighty clusterfuck and then mob-voted by people including, for example, our friend PBP who is now de facto claiming that a regional food is more notable than a highly ranked school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think the bar for notability is completely arbitrary..." Well, not *completely*, but largely, yes, it can be. The outcome in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination) could well have been different -- even on the discussion had, the closing admin could have closed as no consensus. And with a few random changes in the editors who participated, it may have been kept. I think its pretty clear that chili burger has far more coverage than that middle school, though its comparing apples and oranges. And I guarantee you could create Mosman public schools or similar and cover the middle school in it. The majority of articles sent to AfD are not controversial discussions, its when we try to delete things in the middle that arbitrariness comes.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An almighty clusterfuck and then mob-voted by people including, for example, our friend PBP who is now de facto claiming that a regional food is more notable than a highly ranked school." Oh, I see. This is revenge for me voting delete on some school articles (and need I reminded you, only a dozen or so of those articles' nominations originated with me). pbp 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so arrogant as to assume that I give two shits such that I would seek "revenge". I don't hang around AFD very often, only every now and then to see whether that "clusterfuck" (and it was a godawful mess of a clusterfuck, there's no other way to describe ~200 articles within a particular category being nominated for AFD in 2 weeks) is being repeated. I saw this AFD, didn't even notice that it was your's until recently, and it is blatantly a case where delete really is the best option. I'm amused, but not altogether surprised, to see your hypocrisy on show in the massive double-standard for articles that you create yourself. It is because of people like you that AFD is as arbitrary as it is today. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or, as a second choice, refactor to Ptomaine Tommy I feel that there's more than a dictionary definition in the article, I think the history rises just above that bar. (And having spent four gasping years in the smoggy Southland of the early 1980s, I have a personal but admittedly non-policy appreciation for the sense that the chili burger has cultural significance, 2am treks to the Rampart Ave Original Tommy's retain mythic proportion. But I digress.) Still, I recognize some folks aren't fond of short articles, however, and if "keep" isn't the result, policy does require us to consider alternatives to deletion. As I feel the meat (pun intended) of the extra information here is the history, I'd recommend considering (as second choice) a refactor to Ptomaine Tommy. There's at least three LA Times articles that are about him (an obit, a memorial plaque, and "Sizing up"), although all are paywalled. In addition there's most of the references here, including the State Senate resolution about him. This would unequivocally meet the letter and spirit of GNG, could retain most of the information in the current article, and would be a plausible redirect target for "chili size", etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised to see this up for deletion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its my fault, because I mentioned it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_Purplebackpack89_from_ARS, as an article that could be wrongfully deleted if not worked on.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ad hominem rhetoric NE Ent 01:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • What exactly did you think it was? And for that matter in what forum would it be appropriate to insult those who disagree with you? Go Phightins! 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Timtrent has a point, though more in general (for AfDs) than in specific at this AfD. It actually isn't much of a subject (and I say that after having looked at dozens of books and newspaper articles) and I wouldn't oppose a merger, though that's definitely not where this is headed. But let's not get carried away on either side of this 'debate', and Timtrent gets bonus points for "good grief". Drmies (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just amuses me to see the great sallying forth of an army to defend this rather pointless little nonentity of an article with that great religion that Every Article is Sacred. The world laughs at Wikipedia for the 'community's' ponderous discussions about keeping trash in the encyclopaedia and yet leaving substantial topics to languish. Rabid inclusionist tactics to keep every goshdarned thing remind me every time that this is a great social experiment rather than any form of real encyclopaedia. So, since this article is so 'obviously valuable' the discussion will be closed as 'keep' and people will consider that they have struck a blow for the improvement of this project. Yet those who look at the project will say, yet again, that those who edit it are, at least in part, barmy. Folk need to get a grip on what is genuinely worth having here and what should be thrown out with the trash. So, again, "Good grief!" Irony is often lost on those most in need of understanding it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I share many of those sentiments--I just dislike being called stupid. Now, if this article is kept, I am not going to sing anyone's praises or celebrate some positive improvement, but I don't see how deletion makes the project better. That the world is laughing is doubtful: we're not that important, nor are the people of the world that informed (thankfully) about how this joint works. If your agenda is really to improve the project by removing what you think is an obvious eyesore, then a redirect would have sufficed, perhaps. If you had waited a week and then quietly redirected it, you might have had a fight with Dream Focus, but not an AfD full of hungry people. On that note: I change my vote and think a redirect is in order--this is not that notable a topic, though it's a happening search term. Just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief is one of my favorites; I can still here Charlie Brown saying that in regards to some shenanigans from Lucy. Go Phightins! 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally suspect too many people have way to much time on their hands. if this is such an insignificant article not worthy of anyones time, why waste so much time trying to delete it, using all manner of "clever" sayings to show how clever you are? At least those people who are attempting to save it have something to show for their efforts. At the end of the day, if this article is deleted, what do you really have to show for it? A lot of wasted time spouting "clever" sayings. Spoildead (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW KEEP AND CLOSE this isn't deletionist...this is almost vandalism. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This love-in is nice, and has me half convinced that we've turned the corner away from a mindset of DELETE EVERYTHING, but not many people are actually giving reasons why this article should be kept when (a) the scope of interest in the article is extremely limited to a small segment of the population in and only in parts of the USA and therefore the notability is limited; (b) the article is only a little bit more than a dictionary definition; and (c) the significant (and focused) coverage in reliable sources is yet to be shown. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Okay, I'll take that on, and thanks for, humor aside, trying to actually get back to the discussion rather than the fighting. Geographic scope is, I think, the weakest argument for deletion you present, as geographic scope is not in and of itself a notability factor (well, outside of EVENT, etc.) More or less, I think it's a bogus argument, and I reject it on its face. (b) I noted, in my argument, that I felt the history with respect to the creation of the chili size brought the article past DICDEF. Reading that page, the history of the chili size is about the thing, not the word. I recommend a full review of Wikipedia:DICDEF#Overview:_encyclopedia_vs_dictionary, and argue we're in encyclopedia territory, and emphasize that, despite popular opinion, size is not the guiding differential for DICDEF. (c) is probably your strongest case, the GNG question, and the existence of sources to meet this criterion is hampered by paywalls in part, and by the age and possible offline nature of any of the relevant sources. Judgment must be applied, and that is undeniably subjective. But it's my judgment that the enormously, wide-spread usage of chili burger, chili size, and so on gives weight toward the argument that sufficient notability exists.
    On a purely hypothetical basis, were I to grant you point (c) we would be required by deletion policy to consider appropriate alternatives for deletion. Your argument to date in no way addresses any such consideration, perhaps you can enlighten us on this omission? ;-) --j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to merging the content elsewhere where it can actually serve some purpose, probably to Chili con carne, where it seems to already be represented. But, at the moment, if we were to pass this article, then we would have to pass other regional variations on whatever. How many different types and combinations and one or two restaurant intepretations of Pasta are there? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why keeping this automatically means creating and keeping other articles. The regional variations of Chili burger can (and probably should) just be covered at chili burger pbp 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm pretty sure you've derailed. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "But, at the moment, if we were to pass this article, then we would have to pass other regional variations on whatever." So, you're saying that if we keep this, we'd have to keep regional variations of Chili burger. And I'm saying that's not the case. I didn't "derail" from your previous comment pbp 18:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to regional variations of chili burger, I was referring to regional variations of other foods, e.g., pasta. If we allow this regional variation of chili, then why shouldn't we allow, for example, Rege's Tortellini with Boscaiola sauce, sold in the pub down the street from me? Separately, don't muck around with editing my comments. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say that a "chili burger" is merely a "regional variation" of chili and to equate it with some random dish in the nearest Italian restaurant is, besides being an other-stuff-doesn't-exist argument, not doing justice to chili burgers/chili size. You can get one or the other in almost any diner or coffee shop in every region of the United States. And it isn't that specific: chili burger may be a variety of chili or burgers, but there are varieties within chili burger pbp 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a Tortellini Boscaiola in virtually every pub here in Australia too. Wow... What's the colour of that link? How about we try Chicken Parmagiana. They're both less notable than the foods from which they have derived, Tortellini and Parmigiana. Regional variations, of which chili burger/size is one are not notable enough to warrant their own article.
The only reason why you're fighting this when you are otherwise voting at a clip of 97% delete votes (afd tool, btw, good to see that your success score has improved beyond the fail line since last I looked) is because it's your article. You have one standard for other articles, and a separate one for yourself, for example this AFD on an article that started off as quality as your's. Or this one. Let's face it, you're not exactly the best judge here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just close this already (as Keep or even no consensus): The concern was that the article wasn't long enough or well enough sourced. The article's longer and has sources. For the people who voted Merge or Redirect, another discussion could be started. But letting this one fester like a lava blister isn't good for anybody. pbp 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Just close this already the way I want it closed"? There are still notability issues, i.e., that the subject is notable independent of one or the other of the merge targets mentioned above (Hamburger or Chili con carne) that have not been addressed either in the article or in this discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep versus Merge doesn't need to be hashed out in an AfD... pbp 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above 2-1 keep !votes, and rationales. If there was reason to !vote otherwise when the article was in an inferior state, the article as it stands now meets our criteria for a standalone article given its improvements. If the community wishes to give those with a different view a resounding response, we can leave this open, or alternatively if at some point the !vote is so clear that it appears to be a waste of the community's time, this can be snowed.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:O ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: leaving aside any possible WP:CABALism or WP:MEATpuppetry, the above !vote, which is "per" the existing majority, doesn't really bring anything new to the conversation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling an editor with over a hundred-thousand contributions a "meat-puppet", which by definition is a new editor attracted to a dispute? I agree this should be left open for it's full length, I am just a little surprised at your decision to characterize an established editor a meat puppet. Go Phightins! 11:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling anyone anything. That's why I said "leaving aside". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still a dicdef. The second paragraph is full of weasel words, and the final paragraph is barely on topic at all. The amusing thing is that everyone knows this but folk seem to have decided to use this article as a battleground. Usually this type of thing is disposed of on sight, there was just no handy speedy deletion rationale. Heavens don't close it early, let it run to term. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more then a hamburger with side dish. Sources not convincing, especially the Senate thingy. The quote sed seem te refer to a burger served with chili. The Banner talk 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with the characterization of it as "Nothing more then a hamburger with side dish". Tommy's burgers and a whole bunch of other kinds of chili burgers have the chili in the burger, not adjacent to the burger pbp 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Do we really want this in what is meant to be a serious encyclopaedia? - Yes: what's not serious about it? Stephenb (Talk) 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a decently referenced article and will likely become better over time. Meets all criteria for inclusion. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The objection seems to be IDONTLTHINKITSNOTABLE,for which the nominator themselves gave an excellent synonym "Notable Schmotable". Calling this merely a "hamburger with a side dish" is like calling a cheeseburger a "hamburger with a topping" , I suppose there are those here who would argue for just that, but would they carry the principle to its logical conclusion and call a hamburger a "ground beef variation", and I suppose, calling ground beef a minor format change of beef, which is of course merely one of the uses of cattle, which are just one species of animal?. This is a distinct food stuff, widely referred to as such by a distinctive phrase, about which a considerable amount has been written. It is originally a regional food, but so are most foods. And even if they remain regional, if they are discussed widely enough they are notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your glowing words for this type of food (i.e., "...calling this merely...") suggests WP:ILIKEIT, and then you use a Slippery Slope/reductio ad absurdum in suggesting that disallowing this article would result in everything short of ground beef being considered unacceptable. You sum up by saying that the subject will become notable by considering it notable... Not sure what type of fallacy that is, but it is definitely an argument to avoid. You're usually a considerate !vote'er hereabouts, have you got anything based in policy? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have never eaten one, primarily because I doubt I would like it. As far as I am concerned, good hamburgers need cheese, onion and tomato and nothing further. Don't read personal views about a subject into my AfD !votes. "merely" refers to the distinctiveness, not the intrinsic quality. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really no different than your Tortellini comparison up above, except it's in the opposite direction and he didn't punctuate it by attacking me. His policy argument is "about which a considerable amount is written". Things that have a considerable amount of stuff written get kept; that's GNG. There's no fallacy here. The person here who doesn't have anything based in policy is you pbp 06:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Attacking" you? That's funny. You really are a delicate little flower for someone who routinely badgers anyone who opposes him in virtually every other XfD with which you've been involved (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Ashland_(3rd_nomination) if you want a perspective other than mine).
Having a lot of text written about it doesn't make something notable. That veggie lasagna is mentioned in such-and-such a best seller as so-and-so's Thursday night meal wouldn't make vegetarian lasagna notable such that it would need a separate article from Lasagna. It's the nature of the mentions that are important, and good quality mentions haven't been provided by you nor anyone else. My comments to DGG stand for themselves. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Add some slaw and onions and you have a Carolina Burger, which has been sold by various chain restaurants. There are other variations that are worth adding as well that add cultural aspects to the much maligned and oft misunderstood chili burger. Unquestionably, the article needs expansion and work, but so do half the articles here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Oh great, now I'm hungry.  ;-) That Carolina burger sounds tasty. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    On the way home from church we stopped at a diner and, for the heck of it, I got a chili burger. It wasn't half-bad, but I think that it would've been better with Dennis's additions...perhaps even some bacon? Go Phightins! 17:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The quality of sourcing required for some subjects is not set at as high a bar as for others, while notability is pretty much a given when it comes to fast food and all things popular culture. I'd hope that it doesn't fork (ahem) any further, but as a significantly distinct variation on the hamburger, I guess it is entitled to its own space. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this, but great! Can you point me to the policy that says that WP:GNG should be laid aside? If you'd pointed this out in the beginning we could have avoided all of the above discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the sarcasm. GNG doesn't have to be avoided, because the article passes GNG. A bunch of editors have said this, and a five-second perusal of the article will reveal enough sourcing to more than pass GNG. So why do you keep saying it fails GNG, and accusing editors who says it passes it of being meatpuppets or other form? Oh, right, because that podunk Australian school was deleted, and that's somehow germane here. Like that matters pbp 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly asserting that it's notable does not mean that it passes WP:GNG. BTW, weren't the one being all innocence abused and wanting to keep the discussion on topic and away from talking about persons a little while ago? Oh, RIGHT, the rules don't apply to you or to your pages. Got it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is: significant coverage. It doesn't seem to be coverage focused on chili burgers as the subject of coverage, but rather burgers generally or the places that sell chili burgers. It is not deserving of it's own article and neither you nor anyone else has thus far managed to provide a policy based reasoned argument why it should be seen as an exception. There's a whole bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and, from you, WP:OWNership. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two good sources on the Carolina Classic, and I can assure you, I think they taste nasty, so I have no love for them. You are using an emotional argument. Are you sure you aren't suffering from the oppose ailment, WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs)
Yep, I honestly don't give two rats. But I'd like for the rules to be consistent instead of completely arbitrary. In this case, it seems to me to be that there is one set of rules for articles in which certain individuals have no interest, and a completely different set of unwritten rules for articles in which certain individuals do have an interest. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You honestly don't give two rats?" You've perfectly proven that you're POV pushing. You've also reaffirmed that this is a payback for the Middle Harbour AfD that I didn't even start. And bullying a bunch of other editors this AfD ain't going to get Middle Harbour undeleted. It will nudge you closer to getting blocked, and sour editors to your point-of-view. You also supposedly seem to be emulating my style at AfD, except that I comment half as much, root my comments in policy (at Ashland, the policy was NOTNEWS, and the strongest advocate for keeping it was blocked for sockpuppetry), and I don't go around using terms like "delicate little flower" and "two rats". And in regard to OWNership, which you pretty clearly don't understand...there is one editor who has twice as many edits on this AfD. There's no OWNership issue on the article, either...apart from clearly promotional material (WP:NOT), I have never opposed any additions to the article pbp 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{multi ec) Danjel, the best you can hope for here is a merge with Hamburger, which is pretty much what your own words suggest. I would prefer that this article found another home but that is just me. I'd prefer that it did not exist here, along with crap about minor "celebrities", almost every high school that has an article, practically every hit single, almost all Bollywood movies and most TV series etc. And anything to do with Bieber. But it is not an argument that I'm going to win.

The subject of the article exists, it can be proven to exist (almost to the degree of "water is wet") and it has a significant place in the lives of people, a fair few of whom probably do need to see a dietician. Surely, you cannot deny these basic statements, apart perhaps from the dietician bit? It passes WP:V with ease. If the article was a recipe or merely a dicdef (as it was once) then that would be cause for deletion. Nonetheless, defining "passing mentions" in pop culture is just a complete waste of time: the nature of the culture is that much that goes on happens on a level that seems absurd from an academic POV but - certainly when something has been documented for at least 60 years - is not ephemeral. It passes WP:GNG, although if Heston Blumenthal or someone like that has done something with it then it would be helpful for us to mention that. Yes, I'd probably prefer that this crap was not here but I have no policy basis for saying so. It has sources and my bet is that if people who have an interest in it really did their stuff then it could have what I call "proper" sources, discussing health, economic impact, cultural significance etc. The nature of the article does not demand the same degree of diligence as, say, a medical article; and the notability is practically inherent. I hate it, but there we go: if people really want to spend time documenting such tripe (sic) then so be it.

Forgive another pun but we cater for all sorts, although the standard of contributions for articles such as this often makes me think that we should review that. I'll get on with building the part of this project that will have a lasting, informative value and not merely attract the attention of drunks and retards. (Which is not a reference to those who have worked on the article but rather the likely readership). I'll also continue to tear down the obvious crap - the puffery, the POV, etc, of which none exists here. If someone really wants to spend time documenting the sort of thing that appears in this article then that is their choice: I think they're nuts, but they probably think that I am also. And the chili burger will still be around when I am long gone; of that I am pretty sure. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, merge is pretty much what I'm aiming for here, as I've said above. Probably to Chili con carne, where there is already extant content on the article's subject. I'll make that clear by actually changing my !vote. Many many times more words have been written by the article's author here about how his feelings are hurt than he, or anyone else, is likely to ever write into the article. It's a classic WP:PERMASTUB. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if there is never a single additional edit to the article (other than to remove the AFD tag). I don't believe it is a stub. A stub is an article that is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage. This article does that, it's just short. Ryan Vesey 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit! Its a clear keep. Though I've enjoyed watching you barb with PBP, its really not in question. The IDONTLIKEITS are trumped by research and sourcing and !votes in support.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "research and sourcing" still does not support the independent notability of the subject of the article. Many of the keep votes above don't reference any aspect of policy, but rather express some form of like for the subject, if anything. One even suggests that we shouldn't expect good claims of notability in regards to food! Quite a number of !votes are qualified with a merge or redirect also suggested, so, if anything, that is the developing consensus position. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chili_burger&oldid=1174360541"