Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beurger King Muslim (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Beurger King Muslim
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A somewhat promotional article on a single restaurant, with some news coverage for its novelty, but that's a single event of no permanent interest.  DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Has been covered very substantially in reliable independent sources. That is the basis for notability. Whether being a halal Burger King ripoff is important or significant is neither here nor there. The restaurant fills a niche that has been made notable by the coverage it's received. A culturally signifanct restaurant to one person may be a novelty to another. Novelties can be notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG with significant coverage in The New York Times, BBC News, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, etc. Additional sources are also available. Also, if one reads the news articles, it is not a novelty to muslim consumers. Regarding the notion of "permanent interest", whatever that means, see WP:NTEMP. North America1000 03:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I di another search, and it appears that there was never more than a single restaurant, and that it has closed by 2011 . Our article has no information later than 2005. It also appears from that site that there are numerous halal restaurant in Paris .  Since the main hits on Google for this restaurant are WP and its mirrors, we either need to delete or update it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I updated it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Deleteand the last thing we need is an excuse to spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock !vote struck. Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Cited also in academic sources as an example of halal significance in the Western food market, as such it is of lasting importance: ,.-- cyclopia speak! 21:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a defunct minor chain (if at all). The coverage offered above, such as in the conference paper, is trivial and incidental. It's consists entirely of:
 * "At least one enterprising Muslim hoped to capture the niche market he felt was not being well served. In 2005, Hakim Badaoui began Beurger King Muslim in France and served an Allied Academies International Conference page entirely halal menu. The restaurant appealed to young Muslims who found eating at other fastfood chains difficult because of their faith. One young Muslim woman interviewed about her experiences stated, “I used to go to McDonald’s once a week, but all I could eat was the Filet-OFish sandwich. Now, I come here.” Unlike some brands such as Mecca Cola, which have developed in the Muslim community to protest American foreign policy and global influence, Beurger King Muslim was established to capture an underserved market. The trend towards an apolitical niche market appears to be growing. "
 * This does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, does not rise to the level of notability to meet WP:Corp. Passing trivia as to a single restaurant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per NA1000. Passes GNG for having been the subject of multiple instances of substantial published sources of presumed reliability. The fact that it was a single restaurant or that it is no longer in business is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Went out of business means no longer WP:NCORP and has been nominated before. Whomever keeps ressurrecting has something to gain by its existence. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. NCORP applies to out of business corporations too Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was nominated before, but it was not deleted. Therefore, there is nobody who keeps resurrecting this as it has had no need of being resurrected. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per NA1K. The fact that it is out of business is irrelevant, as is the fact that this was a single restaurant instead of a chain. Lepricavark (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is a "Delete on promotion" alone vote because that's how promotional this article is. A business and its dealings, no big deal. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have struck this !vote because you already !voted earlier in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now additionally struck the comment as HYYY has been blocked for disruption and socking. Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Their popularity (and attendant press coverage) may have waned over time, but their notability is still there because notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMP. Ammarpad (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (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.