Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:48, 6 December 2012

Chili burger

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)

• 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)

• Like you have bothered with it since you created it in August 2011. Go on then. Prove it to be notable! It's still a dicdef. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hamburger. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick search turned up 25 Google Scholar references pbp 00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. And not one of those 25 Google Scholar references you say you found is cited.Blue Riband► 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Found and reliable's all you need for WP:V pbp 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above, wikipedia is not a dictionary. ˜danjel  01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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; Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages'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)

The comes up a lot too. Doesn't deserve its own article though. ˜danjel  02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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 • 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• 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 decker 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I was surprised to see this up for deletion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Its my fault, because I mentioned it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_Purplebackpack89_from_ARS, as an article that could be wrongfully deleted if not worked on.--Milowent • 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Referenced; seems to be a happening kind of burger, though not, unfortunately, right here right now. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• KEEP per reasoned arguments above. Whatever happened to the mantra that wikipedia is striving to be the source of all knowledge? Isn't a chili burger included in that all inclusive list? :) Spoildead (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per the above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• SNOW KEEP AND CLOSE this isn't deletionist...this is almost vandalism. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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  01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  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 Misplaced Pages: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 decker 01:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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  03:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Huh? I'm pretty sure you've derailed. ˜danjel  17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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  23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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  00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

"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  03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep versus Merge doesn't need to be hashed out in an AfD... pbp 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

:O ˜danjel  07:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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  07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates