Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Sandwich
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 merge to Grease Trucks. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fat Sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article, questionably notable. I attempted a merge to Grease Trucks, apparently the parent article, as another user had suggested, but was reverted. Shimeru 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't attempt to merge it. You blanked it and redirected it to Grease Trucks without moving any information (nor discussion that I saw). A redirect isn't the same as a merger.Njsustain (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Grease Trucks, which are apparently the venue where these sandwichs are sold at Rutgers University. Having a separate article with unreferenced details of who thought up each sandwich and what is on each one seems spammy, even if the sandwiches do not include Spam along with a burger, fries, chicken fingers, and marinara sauce. Edison (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth is it spammy to list the ingredients? Are you going to propose the Club Sandwich article for deletion because they list the ingredients there? Njsustain (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Grease Trucks. This isn't the place to discuss whether the content of the article is properly sourced. Merge it now, and pick at the article later. These sandwiches have had undeniable national (American) coverage and so is more notable than Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant whose deletion is unlikely as no consensus is being reached on that New Brunswick establishment. I'm going to say this out loud: People think Daryl Wine Bar is notable because it is an expensive place. That the Fat Sandwiches are only $6 do not change the fact that they have had both local and NATIONAL coverage in RS. Njsustain (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, this is exactly the place to discuss whether the content of the article is properly sourced. If they've had significant national coverage as the primary topic in reliable sources (which the trucks have had), please produce the sources. And also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shimeru 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I suggested the merger, why don't you look on the Grease Truck article website. The topic has had coverage in USA Today and on the Food Network as the subject of an episode of "Man vs. Food"; one was voted Maxim Magazine's best sandwich, and they have had coverage in local newspapers. This exceeds notability requirements. Njsustain (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I suggested, and performed, the merge. You undid it, insisted on an AfD if any change was to be made, and now have apparently decided that my initial editorial decision was correct after all. Which rather confuses me, really; I don't see what the point of all this is if you've favored a merge all along. But so it goes. Shimeru 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you did no such thing. You did not merge anything. Merge means "combine." What you did is blank the article, and redirect it to "Grease Trucks". That isn't combining, that's just deleting one thing. I have no objection to an actual merger, but do object to a pretend merger, which is what you performed. (And so it goes.) Njsustain (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not just say so, instead of demanding an AfD? For the record, all of the sourced information was already present in the other article, leaving nothing to "combine". Shimeru 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Demanding an AfD?? Please. What on earth are you talking about? Further, just because all the information you saw fit to include was in the other article doesn't mean it was good style to simply blank the article without any discussion. Njsustain (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about the summary you used in this edit, which demanded a discussion about deleting the article (which was rather puzzling since that hadn't been my goal in the first place, but I assumed that you were implying that, since a merge/redirect was "inappropriate", you wished to see the article either kept separate or deleted). Since you don't appear to actually disagree, there is no need for an AfD -- you could have simply used the page history to merge whatever it is you feel I neglected into the target article. I fully encourage you to do so now. See comment below. Shimeru 02:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Demanding an AfD?? Please. What on earth are you talking about? Further, just because all the information you saw fit to include was in the other article doesn't mean it was good style to simply blank the article without any discussion. Njsustain (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not just say so, instead of demanding an AfD? For the record, all of the sourced information was already present in the other article, leaving nothing to "combine". Shimeru 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you did no such thing. You did not merge anything. Merge means "combine." What you did is blank the article, and redirect it to "Grease Trucks". That isn't combining, that's just deleting one thing. I have no objection to an actual merger, but do object to a pretend merger, which is what you performed. (And so it goes.) Njsustain (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I suggested, and performed, the merge. You undid it, insisted on an AfD if any change was to be made, and now have apparently decided that my initial editorial decision was correct after all. Which rather confuses me, really; I don't see what the point of all this is if you've favored a merge all along. But so it goes. Shimeru 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I suggested the merger, why don't you look on the Grease Truck article website. The topic has had coverage in USA Today and on the Food Network as the subject of an episode of "Man vs. Food"; one was voted Maxim Magazine's best sandwich, and they have had coverage in local newspapers. This exceeds notability requirements. Njsustain (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, this is exactly the place to discuss whether the content of the article is properly sourced. If they've had significant national coverage as the primary topic in reliable sources (which the trucks have had), please produce the sources. And also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shimeru 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Grease Trucks- it's really obvious this needs to be merged, since it has no independent sources. BE——Critical__Talk 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to withdraw the nomination, since there appears to be agreement that a merge and redirect should be implemented. Shimeru 02:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on the Grease Trucks article when I get a chance. In the mean time, if this article is blanked/redirected, please redirect any links to Fat Sandwiches to the Grease Trucks article, rather than simply removing the links, or simply leave them to redirect... it's not the worst thing in the world.Njsustain (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think the bulk of the merger is done. Anyone interested, please help iron it out at Grease Trucks. Njsustain (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it looks like someone has since added to the Fat Sandwich article during (and due to) this debate, so there is also some info about the unhealthiness and possibly some other references. If someone else could please add that in before the Fat Sandwiches article is blanked and redirected that would be swell. Njsustain (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Added: Well, I worked on it some more. It actually looks not half bad now, IMHO. I'll leave it to others to redirect Fat Sandwiches to "Grease Trucks." Njsustain (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (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.