Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:37, 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)
• Ah, the alleged wisdom of crowds. The article on Dog shit redirects to a wiser article. And the wisdom ~incoherent giggle~ of crowds wnats to keep Chili burger. It is so well worth fighting to retain! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 • 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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  12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 • 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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  15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• "I think the bar for notability is completely arbitrary..." Well, not *completely*, but largely, yes, it can be. The outcome in Misplaced Pages: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 • 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• "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)

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  16:57, 5 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)
• I see that you all believe the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. I just love the wisdom of crowds. I'm mainly looking at it from the perspective of a pigeon trapped in a wardrobe. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yay! Insult your opponents! Great way to win a debate! Drmies (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wait... this is a debate? Good grief! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

• I have not called anyone stupid :) I'm simply sad that the community rushes to the aid of ordure, rather like a lynch mob in reverse. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates