Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Szechuan sauce riots


 * 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 delete. While multiple sauces have covered the matter to some degree, consensus is for deletion, mostly as per WP:NOTNEWS. North America1000 04:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

2017 Szechuan sauce riots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The word "riots" in the title of the article is misleading per MOS:CONFUSE. No reliable source has called it that, unless it is between quotation marks in order to express irony. Furthermore, considering the enduring notability of the events, the sauce fiasco is not notable enough to develop a stand-alone article about it per WP:NOTNEWS. - Radiphus  11:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Update: The page has been renamed to 2017 Szechuan sauce fiasco. - Radiphus  13:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The very definition of WP:NOTNEWS, and "fiasco" definitely doesn't correct the inaneness of dumb 'and finally' items being called 'controversies'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above and the article makes no credible claim of significance - it just says there was an "incident" but does not describe what that incident was. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The incident was covered at various media including Fortune. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not obliged to carry articles about any event that is covered by various media. For example, Fortune have an article detailing how Goose Island Will Release 8 Different Bourbon County Brand Stout Variants This Year, but I'm pretty sure an article on that topic wouldn't survive AfD.--Pontificalibus 10:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify. My Keep vote is for the subject. The incident has been covered at various media, not just Fortune, but CNBC and The Independent and many others as well. As an inclusionist I always suggest to check Google News and Google Books before nominating anything for the deletion. In this example, there are 1900+ press mentions for "McDonald's" +"Szechuan" at Google News. This means that the subject itself is notable and either: 1) a properly referenced section should be created at McDonald's article or 2) a Szechuan sauce article should be created. As an example, South China Morning Post article says "McDonald’s has “brought back” to China the Szechuan sauce that caused a frenzy in America last year". --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N, the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article, and this is what we are discussing about in this AfD. Note that i myself have written the section Rick and Morty (season 3) which mentions the incident, but i could never imagine it being notable enough for WP standards to develop a stand-alone article about it. - Radiphus  18:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a clear WP:NOTNEWS story which barely warrants a mention in the McDonalds article let alone its own article. Valenciano (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have seen Wikipedia plumb some depths in the past, but this is deeper than most. Fails almost any test that could be thrown at it but let's just stick with WP:NOTNEWS.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This doesn't contain enough debth to the story to be a standalone article. it should be either/both included in the McDonalds pages and Rick & Morty pages. But it's not a noteable enough cultural event to warrant its own article Llaowyn (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. - I am the creator of this article, and I apologise for the lack of content and citations. I am new to Wikipedia, and I don't have the time and energy to expand articles most of the time. So I understand if you agree to delete this article, because I'm not very proud of it either. --User:Danielcool123 10:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.