Talk:Chili burger

Merger proposal
Recently, Chili burger was subjected to an AfD, the conclusion of which was "keep", but apparently with no prejudice against merging the article. Therefore, I'm proposing that the article be merged here.

The reasons I have are:
 * There is no independent notability for chili burger against chili con carne. No sources attesting to the notability of the subject were given or are likely to be given.
 * The article is a WP:PERMASTUB without much opportunity for expansion. Therefore, it is better to roll the information into an article where it can actually be of use, and I note that it is already represented here.
 * Providing endless articles on regional variations and approaches to eating a particular food isn't an especially good way to fragment a topic.

I have notified all participants from the AfD (save one, who appeared to be indefinitely blocked). I have also notified the Food and Drink Wikiproject.

It was suggested in my initial proposal at Talk:Chili con carne that Hamburger might be a better target for this merge. Personally, I feel that the former is the better target, but I'm not too bothered. Therefore, I felt that it might be better to move the proposal here.

Support Merging to Chili con carne

 * Support as Proposer. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support by Fiddle Faddle, per previous discussion at Talk:Chili con carne, quoted below.
 * I would consider this option already closed, that sunk in record time below!--Milowent • hasspoken 16:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very premature (in a merger discussion) and somewhat prejudicial to characterise this option as sunk. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Merging to Hamburger

 * Weak Support. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support by Fiddle Faddle, per previous discussion at Talk:Chili con carne, quoted below.

Oppose

 * Oppose by Milowent, per previous discussion at Talk:Chili con carne, quoted below.
 * Oppose by Sitush, per previous discussion at Talk:Chili con carne, quoted below.
 * Oppose by Ryan Vesy, per previous discussion at Talk:Chili con carne, quoted below.
 * Oppose, rationale in discussion below. Available material on the history of the chili burger is a poor fit for either merge target.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: see below. Hamburger is already a large article and its pieces on types of Hamburgers are a lot smaller. There was ample consensus against merging in the AfD, as well as ample consensus against this being a permastub. All in all, this is ill-conceived and pointy p  b  p  16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: it's a poor fit in either of the suggested articles, and merging anything more than a sentence or two would result in overemphasizing the chiliburger in the targeted article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn't belong in chili con carne, and is notable enough to be split from hamburger. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion (copied from Talk:Chili con carne
Below is the discussion as it took place at Talk:Chili con carne. I'm not hatting the discussion, as several points oppose and support should probably be considered still standing.




 * Support as proposer. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Sensible proposal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I support the merging of this with any other suitable article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about the main page? I mean, the chili burger is a subset of all human knowledge, so it could go there.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: None of the sources in the article support the theory that the chili burger's notability is derived from chili.  I know because I spent some time researching the subject including looking at articles behind paywalls.  If anything, its more closely derived from hamburger, though its become a specially recognized product of its own, with its own history and culture.  That's why we have the longstanding hamburger template.  Indeed, no one at Articles for deletion/Chili burger other than the discussion starter here, who contributed TWENTY COMMENTS at the AfD, even supported the idea of a merger to chili con carne.  My position won't be surprising to anyone who participated at Talk:Pizza_cheese, but this case is stronger than that one.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a number of participants who supported a merge/redirect, but did not commit strongly to a particular target. I would not oppose a merger to hamburger. But this was my suggestion, hence I'm following through with it. If people would prefer to choose hamburger, that would be OK. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was clearly to keep, though you were apparently mistaken on that point and tried to add a "closing argument" to the AfD to that effect, and the closing admin didn't even see fit to respond to you. But of course nothing precludes this merger discussion, except common sense, in my good faith opinion.  A merger to hamburger would be equally bad, but I noted that no one was swayed by your 20 comments at the AfD.  If you studied the scholarly literature on the hamburger, you would see that it would unwieldly to merge the legitimate variation articles all into that topic.  OK now, do we need to notify everyone who participated at the AfD?  Here is my seriously good faith suggestion: drop the merger proposal, and come back in 6 months if you still feel the same about it.  I doubt you will care.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing an AFD as keep never prohibits a merge discussion. Ryan Vesey 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a "good faith" proposal, that's an attempt to sidestep. You saw that most of the !votes were simple WP:ILIKEIT's and very few actually provided a rationale beyond that. The consensus was not clear, as several of the keep voters who did provide rationales also suggested merge/redirects. Consensus is not a vote. In any case, the notability problems of the article (those that I have raised above) were not and are not being addressed by you there or here. If hamburger is not a legitimate target, then go ahead and suggest a way to avoid the creation of WP:PERMASTUBS like chili burger.
 * Everyone has been notified (acknowledging that I somehow managed to skip Sitush, with my apologies). &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it should not be merged here or elsewhere. The recent AfD for Chili burger made that abundantly clear: merge was an option then, it was raised and it was rejected. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A chili burger definitely is not Chili con carne. If chili burger was ever merged, it would have to be to Hamburger; although, I would not support that.  The idea that chili burger is a perma-stub is flawed.  First, let's remember that the concept of "perma-stub" is based on an essay.  Even still, one aspect of a perma-stub is that it is not informative.  This article is definitely informative. Ryan Vesey 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Danjel, you did not notify me. Spotted this via a watchlisted user talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Never saw the afd, don't care what happened there. But as a regular watcher of this chili con carne page, I think his is a very poor target for a merge. Chili con carbs is used as a topping ingredient in many foods (chili dogs anyone?), and this article would be overwhelmed if it were to contain all such foods. Hamburger is slightly better, but would be in much the same boat. A chili burger combines two distinct food into a third, distinct dish. Likewise we are not hurt (WP:NOTPAPER) by having three distinct articles. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a few reasons. First, a chili burger is a variant of a burger, not a type of chili.  Second, it just came off AfD and I think a little more time should be given for development.  There seems to be a bit of a battlefield developing with some of the editors on both sides of the discussion, which I find troublesome.  It is just a small article on a sandwich.  Merge may or may not be the better solution and I don't feel strong enough about it to get in a fight over it, but letting some trivial thing get you wound up isn't good for you or Wikipedia.  While this isn't my rationale for opposing, it is good practice to have discussions in a productive and cooperative environment, rather than a reactive environment with people digging in instead of discussing.  Maybe a 30 day wait to allow for development is a better idea.  I've looked myself, and the sources aren't the easiest to find, so the concern is valid.  I expect to look more. If for no other reason, I think it would be a stronger sign of good faith to do so. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I summed up my reasons in the AfD, and again at the simultaneous merger discussion at Talk:Chili burger, but for those who missed it, here's a recap. The article passes GNG; people who supported keeping it did so because it passed GNG and not because they "liked it".  The notion that this is a permastub was repudiated in the AfD; it can be repudiated further just by looking at the article.  Neither chili con carne nor hamburger are the best of targets.  This is an ill-conceived and POINTy nomination that pretty clearly is going nowhere, so I echo Dennis and say it should be withdrawn  p  b  p  16:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Oppose Never saw the afd, don't care what happened there. But as a regular watcher of the chili con carne page, I think his is a very poor target for a merge. Chili con carne is used as a topping ingredient in many foods (chili dogs anyone?), and this article would be overwhelmed if it were to contain all such foods. Hamburger is slightly better, but would be in much the same boat because of the number of variations. A chili burger combines two distinct food into a third, distinct dish. Likewise we are not hurt (WP:NOTPAPER) by having three distinct articles.oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Thanks for the notification.  In trying to find sources at the AfD, and I spent a good hour or more looking, I discovered, as I noted, what appeared to be enough material to, by itself, pass GNG surrounding the history of the chili burger at Ptomaine Tommy's. That material is not subject to HOWTO or NOTDICT concerns. That material appears from what I can see to reach notability by itself, based on what I can see of 3 LA Times articles through a paywall, however, I will not drop $20 or more on every AfD that settles in my stomach like a double chili cheese extra chili.  Moreover, other materials exist, I've seen a photograph of the restaurant where the chili burger was invented that may or may not predate the copyright window, even if that one doesn't, there is possibly one that does--and if it doesn't, there are still preserved artifacts of that restaurant (the Lincoln Heights NA may have access to same, one would have to enquire.)   As I believe that historical material, while not voluminous, is by itself notable, and since I don't feel that material is a good fit for integration into chili con carne, I'm not convinced that this merge is, in the long run, a good editorial choice.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Strong Oppose: per the overwhelming consensus at AfD that it should be kept, per the fact that there is plenty here already and plenty more out there to justify a separate page (i.e. that this isn't a permastub), per Oknazevad's comments that Chili con Carne is a bad merge target, and in general because this is an ill-conceived, disruptive and pointy thread p  b  p  16:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling the consensus "overwhelming" when most of the !voters were saying WP:ILIKEIT is a stretch. I see that you're still playing the victim card. Nice. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE Danjel, you've copied over parts, but other comments are still only at the wrong article. You didn't start the discussion here to begin with, which is where it should have started since this is the article to be moved.  And you've changed the target article.  This reinvorces my previous comment on the other page  that this is reactionary, and it appears, not well thought out.  A 30 day wait to allow a little time to see if it can be sourced is not only reasonable, but the best course of action.  The battleground that seems to be  developing isn't encouraging.  Again, if only for good faith, you should withdraw. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked the closing admin for his/her rationale and s/he suggested that a merge proposal might be called for, hence. As I said, personally, I think that Chili con carne is still the better target, but I don't mind.
 * I've copied over everything at the time of posting. If I missed something it was in the meantime.
 * As for battleground. AfD as a whole is a massive battleground, and that AfD in particular was pretty bad. But that certainly wasn't my sole responsibility. I don't think that one individual's tendencies towards drama should be allowed to determine outcomes for the whole project (in order to avoid that drama). There will be no difference if this proposal is made now or in a month's time, the drama will still be there.
 * In any case, I imagine this proposal could be here for a while before consensus develops, one way or the other (or the article is developed to the point where this proposal would be redundant). There's no rush here (unlike at AfD). <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Danjel, the point is that it is better to take the path that will obviously cause less drama, will be in the best of faith, and isn't perceived as being POINTy. Essentially saying "Hey, not my problem" and the aggressiveness of your actions throughout demonstrate that you are one of the ones that has dug in.  It is difficult to get others to consider your perspective once you've done that, as it is pointy.  While it might not suit your particular goal here, the best thing for Wikipedia is when you don't start a process knowing full well you have dug in and knowing it will cause drama.  If your goal is building an encyclopedia, then be wise enough to make the choice that is best to reduce drama and encourage an actual discussion.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is only being characterised as being WP:POINTy by a single individual who has absolutely no qualms with kicking up drama. Now, you and I can either "reduce the drama" by giving in, giving that individual the outcome that he wants, and thereby encouraging such behaviour, or we can say that enough is enough and that we should act like adults and consider this proposal on it's merits and take part in an actual discussion. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem, here, Danjel. "The outcome the individual [me] wants" is the same thing as "the best outcome on its merits".  Also, there's zero need to make this personal, and even less need to keep making it personal, so you should stop doing it over and over and over again.  And I hate to say it, but I think Dennis is agreeing with me in part, if not that you're pointy now, you're going to be pointy if you keep this up much longer  p  b  p
 * "The outcome you want" is the same thing as "the best outcome on it's merits", says you. As always, you're the one who's trying very hard to keep this personal. Your very first post here was a wail about how you feel victimised. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Danjel, you're the one tilting at the hamburger windmill, not pbp.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right! Because, thus far, he has what he wants. All he has to do is keep the drama up and mission accomplished. Thanks for helping him do that by the way. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's turn on the 78 rpm...hmmm, all it seems to be playing is "Purplebackpack and drama...Purplebackpack and drama" (must be time for a new needle). Seriously, it was closed as keep because people I don't know from Adam said "Keep, because it passes GNG", not because of racheting up drama.  The drama-racheting-up at this merger proposal is all you, dude  p  b  p  17:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point.
 * So, apparently others need to understand the "full context". The full context is this is standard strategy for pbp. His actions at, for example, Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Ashland_(3rd_nomination) where pbp badgered almost every vote that disagreed with him, creating what can only be described as a battleground.
 * I have attempted to work these issues out with pbp, and failed (User_talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive_7). I am not the only one who has raised WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with pbp, there are numerous examples before and after my attempt.
 * So, with all that in mind, all of this is his usual strategy. Kick up the drama as much as possible and create a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Take his rantings and wailings on this article for what they're worth; nothing. There'll of course be a response to this.
 * Meanwhile, I hope that you give this proposal the objective attention that it deserves. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It deserves none. Its pretty clear, notwithstanding PBP's imperfections, that you are retaliating.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So a merger, suggested by the closing admin, deserves no attention. OK. Sure. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 18:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I suggest just walking from this one. It's obvious what the community wants. It's sapping community resources, and is heading toward hard feelings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What does a 9-month-old AfD have to do with this discussion, apart from the fact that Danjel started this to prove some sort of POINT or settle some sort of score against me? However, it is worth this tool, Danjel's now made as many edits to this proposal as I made to the Ashland AfD; he made more than twice as many to the Chili burger AfD as I made to Ashland.  And you keep talking about victimization?  I feel I have a right to feel victimized, because nearly ever edit you've made in the last week is a jab or hound at me of some sort.  And I feel the other editors who agree with me have a right to feel victimized as well, because you've accused them of meatpuppetry, voting on ILIKEIT, and then started this ridiculous thread on top of it  p  b  p  19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose of either merger per the consensus at AfD that it should be kept. There are plenty of recipes out there for this dish, and outlets that serve it. Stephenb (Talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Vehemently Oppose, at least for now - I agree with Dennis; it would be far better to hold off on even having this discussion for 30 days, but if we must have it now, I think that it's pretty clear that consensus at the AfD was to keep. For as many WP:ILIKEIT, which by the way is just an essay, !votes as there were I'd argue that there was an equal proportion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes, but that's neither here nor there. If we absolutely must merge the article, chili con carne is a terrible target...hamburger would be far better, but to reiterate, I oppose the merger. In six months, maybe, we'll see, but for now, there's some attention on the article, it's likely to improve, and if there's a decent quality article on a notable topic, I don't see how merging is necessary. Go   Phightins  !  20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose any merger. At one time thought hamburger might be a conceivable target, but there's now enough in this article that it stands well on its own.  Chili con carne is definitely not an appropriate target (a chili burger is a kind of burger, not a kind of chili).  Time to give the topic debate a rest, look for more on history and variations, and eat some chili burgers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
FYI, this merger discussion (and more specifically, Danjel's actions in it), have been mentioned at WP:ANI p  b  p  20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said there, I think it is premature. Additionally, the merge discussion should be put off, I can restart and mediate it in a month, and you two need to just put some distance between yourselves.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, after all.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Per the discussion on my talk page, we are going to postpone this merge discussion until January 11, 2013. Over the next month, it is recommended that we all find sources that demonstrate the article doesn't need merging. While it has a lot of sources, they are pretty weak in demonstrating a stand alone article is justified. I will start a merge discussion and stay out of the voting in a month. I would request that everyone act in the best of faith and just try to improve the article, then participate in the discussion in a month. I'm gladdened that Danjel has agreed to let this wait, so that we can reduce the drama and be objective in deciding the best result as a community. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of expanding this, as I have previously noted, if someone has LA Times archives access that would be helpful. Additionally, I have sent a note to one group that may be able to provide one or more illustrations relating to the PT's as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I might have that through my school. Whatya want?  p  b  p  16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to see, , and to a lesser extent (the word counts are not promising that they'll contain new detail and  .  Have already attempted the top two with Highbeam and Google searches. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Right now, there are several sources that are of dubious value. We need to focus on sourcing on the subject as a whole, rather than sources that claim a special name or recipe.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a whole section on Ptomaine Tommy's could be developed. That could later be split off to a separate article, or remain no matter what happens to chili burger.  Also, if someone could pull all the LA Times Gene Sherman articles that discuss the origin, that would be helpful.  I didn't even cite them all, but in 1957-58, apparently this was a big controversy in Los Angeles and he wrote about it a number of times.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I am not finding any general subject books on "the chili burger", not even a dedicated cookbook, which worries me.  I may have to make a trip to an actual library.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a chapter in a book about Chili or L.A. food. A chapter would certainly be enough  p  b  p  19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A chapter in more than one book would be great, if the chapter is devoted to the topic as a whole. I'm betting it exists, I just haven't found it and didn't get to look much today, had to play admin most of the day and didn't get to the library. I will keep looking, suggest others do the same, just dump the ISBN and chapter number here if all else fails, I can access just about any book.  Fortunately, NC has a pretty good online library system. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 02:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - If it helps at all, adding cheese to the searches might help too, so that it becomes "chili cheeseburgers", I'm finding a few brief things about various chili cheeseburgers, but nothing yet that I'd be confident in using, mostly just recipes in cookbooks and such. - SudoGhost 03:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a book about the history of hamburgers with a brief mention on page on page 47 about the earliest burgers, and how chili was being served on burgers in 1928. - SudoGhost 03:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That helps establish the origins, so yes, that helps. I need to research more and see if I can develop a History section, and that will fit right in. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 03:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been searching, but unfortunately that's all I was really able to find. I found about a hundred different cookbook recipes and local magazines saying "if you go to restaurant XYZ, try the chili cheeseburger", but nothing else (I only searched on Google Books though, and only for "chili cheeseburger"). - SudoGhost 03:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I did find this; The Varsity here in Atlanta has chili cheeseburgers as one of the main parts of the menu. This probably doesn't really help, but I thought I'd mention on the off chance that it might. - SudoGhost 03:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna make this simple with regards to my opinion. There's enough for a short article or it could be merged with something else. Neither one is a perfect solution, but this debate is missing a huge forest for a single sapling. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really a debate at this point, but a building process that will make a discussion about merging more fruitful and likely to have consensus. To me, this is the proper way to handle it, everyone determining the outcome by their efforts rather than their opinions.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede - second paragraph
That's not clear. Is a hamburger patty common? Sometimes is the chili is served on the side of an empty bun, or always a patty? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The patty is always there somewhere, the phrasing is just poor. I'm pretty sure that "chili size" is actually usually bunless, and we don't clarify that.  --j⚛e deckertalk 03:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hamburger - Failed
A Chili burger is just a hamburger with chili on top, its not a distinct food type onto itself. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Strong Oppose Merger, Speedy Close Discussion as Disruptive: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page. Also, Chili burger is clearly notable in its own right, and Hamburger is clearly not the best of merger targets. Finally, we only recently had a merger discussion; it ended in a SNOW keep. p b  p  06:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its notability is separate from hamburgers, as shown by the sourcing. See also Talk:Chili_burger. But your slander to chiliburgers is duly noted :-).  That's just your personal opinion, at least as you've laid out your case.  Also the existence of List of hamburgers and all its constituent articles shows there is a consensus against having a mega article combining all of this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  04:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we had a deletion discussion, and it closed as 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". - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a legit nomination, however the chili burger is sufficiently distinct from a normal hamburger to have its own article; also, per Milowent. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Merge - After however long since the previous discussion, while there has been work, this article still lacks a sourced claim to notability independent of the other articles linked from this article per WP:GNG. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 06:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Milowent.  He  iro  06:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Chili con carne is just chili sauce with meat in it; there are many, many articles that could be simplified to that sort of description, yet warrant a separate article. A chili burger is a distinct food type, I found a couple of sources (in the discussion preceding this one) that I think show that.  It is also distinct enough from hamburger to justify a separate article. - SudoGhost 07:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Scaldjosh (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a distinct dish, and with 20 refs, easily passes GNG. The infobox is good, and if merged, that would be gone. Hamburger is a big article, and chili burger would be section lost within, an unbefitting fate for an article with 20 refs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)