Jump to content

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

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 No consensus to delete I do however think that the concerns raised by those in favor of deletion have merit and the article should be pruned and merged back into the parent article. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger menu items

[edit]
In-N-Out Burger menu items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A detailed analysis of a fast-food restaurant's menu is trivia -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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]
Not really no, since the very same entry you noted specifically includes an exception to the rule. Besides, this page ISN'T about only having the current menu. It's obviously capable of giving a historical perspective. Perhaps you might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. Those pages are not program schedules. This is a program schedule [1]. I get the impression that you don't realize that the problem with referring blindly to rules without making an argument as to applicability is hardly convincing. Not when it's clear that the so-called rules have been misinterpreted before, but the consensus was against that interpretation. There's a reason why WP:BURO says that the spirit is more important the a literal interpretation of the rules. I just haven't seen a good argument from you or anyone as to why this should be removed. Merged might make sense, but I can see why it might not be on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 18:58, 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? FrozenPurpleCube 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]
  • 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 [2]. Here's a few more that indicate the menu of the company is relevant. [3][4]. Somebody else can probably find more. [5] 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. [6]. FrozenPurpleCube 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already said my position on the issue of merging. Here it is again: 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. If you wish to make that argument, that would be one thing, but none of the rest of what you're saying has any particular relation to that issue, which is about the scope of the content of an already existing page. They're not even correct substantially correct. As I said, there's nothing obviously applicable in WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR is equally flawed. This is not a list of loosely associated topics, a phone book or genealogical entry, a directory of current events, or really a sales catalog. There is no way this page could be considered solely or primarily a sales catalog, the chain doesn't conduct business over the internet, and there are no prices on the page anyway. As far as it goes, I do think describing the services and products offered by Wal-mart is reasonable as well, and should be mentioned on the appropriate page. This may or may not be an individual page, depending on the individual content available. But that would be a question for those pages. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, you're mistaken that Blogs do not constitute any kind of reliable source. There are many blogs which are professionally produced, and are highly reputable. See blog for some discussion of the subject. While it's true many blogs are just individuals of no import, there are people and websites that are import and do have a reputation. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 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. FrozenPurpleCube 05:32, 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. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a word...No. In more words: No, absolutely not. It is a given that there are companies that are obviously going to be included on an Encyclopedia. They are notable, mentioned and described in numerous reliable sources, and otherwise meet the existing criteria for inclusion. Since what they do is meaningful to creating an appropriately informative article, that information needs to be included as well. This is especially true for companies that make products that are themselves going to be included on Wikipedia, such as automobile companies and software firms. Including this information, particularly in list form, is helpful in organizing Wikipedia as it provides helpful links to the appropriate places as well as a framework to build upon. You can quibble over the level of details if you want, but I would not support a prohibition that banned any such pages at all. If you can't tell the difference between pages like the ones I mentioned above and a sales catalog, well, I don't know how to help you any further. FrozenPurpleCube 18:51, 25 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. FrozenPurpleCube 07:17, 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. FrozenPurpleCube 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 [7]. 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]
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]
Wikifood would be about, I suppose preparing food. However, the subject of food, restaurants, and so forth is clearly encyclopedic, as it is something that people do consider worthy of discussion and information. If you don't believe me, go watch the History channel program on American Eats. Whether or not the arrangement of food on their burgers is relevant content to include would be a discussion for the talk page though, not an argument for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 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]
  • Edit savagely and merge with prejudice; I can see how the secret menu thingy is notable enough to be mentioned after all, but certainly not a whole article's worth and there is little point in elaborating in detail about how to order every item or variation thereof. — Coren (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy cow! NN in many ways (about a local restaurant) and lack of citations. Portions can be merged with the main article.JForget 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, In-N-Out Burger is a local restaurant? Over a hundred locations is hardly a local restaurant. Regional, maybe, but several states is a rather large region. 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The NN argument isn't very strong here, as multiple, reliable sources have been listed throughout this AfD. the_undertow talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I personally find it hard to fathom creating an article about a restaurant and not covering the food to some extent. The question of the extent of the coverage is another matter. Note however, this article is not a simple repetition of the current offers, but provides, however minimally, some examination of the menu by including reactions to it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "secret menu" cited as the most encyclopedic portion consists of such information as "Regular Onions is what a customer receives by default, if they want onions. This refers to one full slice of onions that is not cooked, but rather placed on top of the center patty or cheese slice while the meat is still on the grill, giving the onion time to warm and soften its flavor". alternatively, move to BJAODN, if it still exists. 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(forgot to sign above--BJ because the very idea of thinking that a list devoted to different combinations of ingredients to put on top of hamburgers at one particular chain--when nothing or almost nothing about them is distinctive--can possibly be encyclopedic-- strikes me as both hilarious, and sort of stupid as jokes go. But agreed, it might also be thought of as a good joke at the expense of WP, but I'm not sure we have a category for that. this is the type of article that makes us look foolish. DGG (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Californians take this 'secret menu' as seriously as those on the east coast treasure their White Castles. This isn't a comment to keep, but to I would like to say that this menu was only recently published. The 'coding' to order existed only by word of mouth and it was no too long ago that the restaurant decided to follow the trend the public started - just like when Chex Mix and Rice Krispie treats were introduced as commercial products many years after the public was already making them. It's really not a joke, nor something that would make wikipedia look bad. It may be regional, and may not survive inclusion, but it would deserve a merge into the parent article as it is certainly the subject of many independent sources. That being said, I think a paragraph could cover the phemonena, and an external link to the menu would provide the curious with everything they need. the_undertow talk 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I forsee with a merge though is that this was originally split out of thei INO article, as the latter was getting too unwieldy. I, personally, would support a merge. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that White Castle is more a Midwest thing than an East Coast thing. According to this map, the only states on the Atlantic with an actual White Castle resturaunt are New York and New Jersey. I'm actually finding it hard to think of a fast food chain that's exclusively - or even primarily - on the East Coast - maybe Roy Roger's? :) --Action Jackson IV 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, details such as this help illuminate the nature of In-N-Out. If you want to understand the difference between In-N-Out and McDonald's, consider the difference in how they handle onions on their burgers. With In-N-Out, it's "one full slice of onions that is not cooked, but rather placed on top of the center patty or cheese slice while the meat is still on the grill, giving the onion time to warm and soften its flavor". With McDonald's, it's "rehydrated onions". — VulcanOfWalden 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As much as I enjoy an In N Out Burger when I visit SoCal, I don't think knowing that they carry Coke and Dr. Pepper is really encyclopedic. As long as the secret menu items are verifiable, then they should be merged. You just have to watch that for the random dimwit who adds the "Harry Potter" or some concoction that he just thought up. Not sure ALL of the detail about every food item is necessary, but he (or she) who merges can make the call on what to include.Montco 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting and verifiable content. --W.marsh 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all lists of menu items) - unless there is something historically significant or otherwise notable about a particular menu item, there is no reason whatsoever to contain the entire menu's details on Wikipedia. I understand that we would definitely like to have the maximum amount of useful information possible on this free encyclopedia, I don't see how having a list of menu items provides any encycyclopedic value whatsoever.xC | ☎ 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just like to point out - McDonald's menu items also exists, which would also fall under this discussion. That page was AfD'd twice before (1.keep 2.no consensus), those past AfDs might be worth looking at. As for the details of the secret menu, they were on a seperate page, which was deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger secret menu. That link might also be worth a look at. Regards,xC | ☎ 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that if the article was written correctly, it would have some substantiation as to what the secret menu is, how it evolved, and what it means as of today. This would be quite different from a list of menu items. Granted, as the article exists, it is a list that spawned into a tangent of the ordering principles, which is the opposite of what I would have wanted to see. the_undertow talk 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If In-and-Out Burger is relevant to this site, then information about their menu items certainly belong as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.224.16 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 July 2007.
  • Delete Lacks the notability to have its own article. Could easily be covered under the In-N-Out Burger article with a small paragraph describing the types of food served, and interesting facts about the menu. All that is missing is prices and we would have a menu that grants In-N-Out Burger free advertising and thats not what Wikipedia is. --Gonzo fan2007 (Talk ♦ Contribs) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Given that In-N-Out Burger is renowned for its food; that there are multiple, independent sources that discuss the topic; that the article gives a thorough description as to the food In-N-Out Burger serves; I say that the article should be kept in its current form. I also think that not everyone has a great enough interest in the topic to want to read the unabridged version of the article. For those readers, I think the best alternative is to port over a subset or summary of this article back into the main In-N-Out Burger article. In essence, a restoration of both articles back to the rough division that they existed in between the time that the Secret menu was first moved into its own article on 05 Sep 2006 and when the Secret menu article was deleted on 24 May 2007. This way, both those who want a thorough examination of the topic and those who want a focused article can be kept happy. The balance between what belonged in which articles changed over time, but that is something resolvable through the normal editorial process.
            When I was looking through Flickr for food photographs to better illustrate the article, I also made a casual search with McDonald's and then Burger King as keywords. In comparison, photos of McDonald's or Burger King often involve buildings, people, or their trademarks. Decent food photography often involved someone taking a photo of the advertising on a paper place mat or the advertising on a wall. In contrast, many of the photographs of food for In-N-Out looked good enough to be used as advertisements. This isn't an original observation of mine; I read it as a passing comment in some news article, but forget where. Nonetheless, I've found it to be a true one.
            With few exceptions, the food that a restaurant serves is an essential part of the restaurant. Most fast food restaurant chains, through their sheer ubiquity if for no other reason, have such a large effect upon diet, particularly in the United States but increasingly worldwide that an examination and description of the food they serve is worthwhile.
            Much of what In-N-Out has renown for is the quality of food they serve. Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, comments that "It isn't health food, but it's food with integrity. It's the real deal." The late Julia Child was a fan of the chain. Thomas Keller describes the inspiration for Burgers and Bottles, a planned burger and wine shack as his "version of In-N-Out" (has yet to come off; ad hoc, the restaurant he stuck in the planned building as a stopgap, proved very successful).[9] Heck, even the Governator doesn't seem to think too badly of their protein-style burgers[10].
            When Robb Walsh, restaurant reviewer for the Houston Press and better known for his Tex-Mex cookbooks, writes about a new burger shop in Houston with its "Animal burger" and never-been-frozen hamburgers, he suspects the influence of In-N-Out.[11] When one of the founders of Pinkberry describes an available, but off-menu item, he says that ordering "[i]t is kind of like going to In-N-Out Burger and ordering 'animal style.'"[12] Folks are using the In-N-Out Burger secret menu as an allusion to describe other things. — VulcanOfWalden 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I commend you on your exhaustive research, I do have to point out that most of these articles would support an article called In-N-Out Burger - which, surprisingly, exists! This goes back to the Wal-Mart catalogue argument outlined above: while Wal-Mart (and In-N-Out Burger are undeniably notable, suffice it to say that the utter minutae of each is not. There's no reason the In-N-Out Burger article cannot have a section labelled "menu", with whatever notable facets of the menu detailed there. --Action Jackson IV 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which brings us back to my first paragraph — a split article gives a page layout that allows for both a concise summary, for those who just want the quick facts, and an unabridged version, for those who want the full details. — VulcanOfWalden 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One man's minutiae is often another man's basic details. In this case, if you want to propose a merge after the AFD, then try it on the talk pages. This discussion indicates to me that there needs to be more thought before doing that. FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you still feel the Wal-Mart argument is in play, I'll say a bit more here. In-N-Out Burger is both the producer and retailer of its own goods, whereas Wal-Mart is solely a retailer, thus In-N-Out's connection to the food it sells is much tighter than that of Wal-Mart. Also, it's not unreasonable for an article about an author to contain a complete list of his books, such as with Isaac Asimov, but for an article about his publisher to only list the authors who write for them.
                Scale matters. In the context of a Wikipedia article, a couple dozen items is easy to list exhaustively. Increase that number to a hundred thousand and the tools available to a single Wikipedia article become insufficient. — VulcanOfWalden 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Original Research and seems like an ad. -FlubecaTalk 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original research that can be sourced to the New York Times or other mainstream newspapers generally isn't considered original research. Where incorrect facts are inserted into the article, these can be corrected by referring to them. See Talk:In-N-Out_Burger#Whammy_Burger as an example. There are issues with tone and phrasing that need to be fixed in the article, but those are editorial problems. — VulcanOfWalden 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an added note, if part of what caused you to say this looks like an ad are the quality of the photos of the food, you've noticed something essential about the chain. At many fast food restaurants, the food that gets served doesn't look like the photos in the advertisements. At In-N-Out Burger, it does. — VulcanOfWalden 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sources establish, unarguably, that the restaurant is notable. The coverage of the menu remains trivial.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The text does contain valid references and I've even heard this article receive attention on a radio show I listen to. I have never been to an In-N-Out restaurant, but I do find this article interesting and believe that it meets our criteria for inclusion due to the coverage received. RFerreira 20:07, 29 July 2007 (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/In-N-Out_Burger_menu_items&oldid=1140203646"