Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items


 * 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 - The deletes have the upper hand, and the issues pertaining to WP:NOT an indiscrimant collection of information and the lack of sources push this over the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Burger King menu items

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jaranda. Per WP:NOT, this list of uncyclopedic terms is not really needed.  Nish kid 64  02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. --Exarion 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - see Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items. --- RockMFR 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the keep votes came from a WP:ILIKEIT point of view which isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, they should have been discounted. Jaranda wat's sup 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu. JuJube 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world Jkstark 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Only the notable ones. :) --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BEANS, Bwithh 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as above Bwithh 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Could be interesting for people who are preparing for their first trip to BK, but still WP:NOT Tuvok ^ Talk  03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because I like it. Kidding! Delete and redirect to Burger King. JuJube 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge —  to Burger King. Bushcarrot ( Talk·Desk ) 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is way too long for a merge Jaranda wat's sup 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Special orders do upset us WP:NOT Jeepday 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just checked Special:Whatlinkshere/Burger_King_menu_items a number of the items on this list have their own articles. The status of those articles might also be called in to question. As I think Croissan'Wich might have problems meeting WP:N and/or be considered Advertising signed Jeepday 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per McDonald's menu items. While "I like it" is not valid per WP:ILIKEIT, "indiscriminate" WP:NOT is not valid either. It doesn't match any of the reasons given under WP:NOT. "Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world" isn't valid anymore than adding one biography means we have to add everyone on Earth. While a list of menu items isn't of value, a list with commentary and with calories would be valuable, since they aren't provided by Burger King in an easy to use format. The list also makes it easy to compare Burger King vs. McDonalds menu items. Its more than a menu when it contains commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:V and I don't see any sources, just a pile of external links. The topic is not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT (for that matter so does the McDonald's one). And for God's sake, please stop with the "Well Article X is here, so Article Y should stay". It's not a keep argument. -- Elar a  girl  Talk 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as there is a page for McDonald's menu items, and the article is more than a run-down of the Burger King menu.  It also includes the history of different items, as well as discontinued and international variations.  --Mrath 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to re-AFD the McDonald's page as for the same reason on this and invalid reasoning on the AFD, just because McDonald's page exist doesn't mean this page has to exist as well. That is clearly not a valid reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's well enough written, but there's still no real reason for the article. Definitely a violation of WP:V.-- Wizardman 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this ad. Doczilla 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; all menu items are listed more concisely on the template. Krimpet 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Restaurant menus vary from place to place, and from country to country for that matter. The "staples" in the menu (Whopper etc.) can get a mention in the main Burger King article, but trying to compile a full list of items is untenable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sjakkalle, who is completely correct in saying that such a list is either untenable (due to variation) or pointless as the "star items" should be on the main page anyway. It is true that perhaps this information could in and of itself useful and should be kept somewhere. Just very definitely not here. Marm (t) 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Burger King, keeping article history. --Czj 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested.  The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items?  Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic list of food. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As what Sjakkalle said, BK's menu items varies in every country, so this page is not at all useful. Maybe just list a number of their well known items on the main article itself. Terence Ong 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither Burger King or McDonalds are, by any stretch of the immagination, restaurants! Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. And get rid of this article, as well. I don't see why a list of products sold at a retail outlet deserve their own entry on Wikipedia, or are we going to have an entry listing all the items that Wal Mart sell? Markb 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Looking at the article, it looks like just about every non-generic (i.e. trademarked) item sold by Burger King has an article anyway, and the ones I looked at listed versions and regional variations for those products. This article provides an OK structural context and is NPOV, hence the weak keep. Also as usual, I disagree with the "slippery slope" arguments that "every restaurant in the world will have to have their menu on Wikipedia" if this is kept. Those pointing to WP:ILIKEIT to "invalidate" the arguments of others are, I hope, aware that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also a shortcut to that page. --Canley 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that it appears there is a consensus to keep the McDonald's menu article, and therefore in order to maintain WP:NPOV we can't discriminate. And yes, I do know that this could result in articles being created for Dairy Queen, Wendy's, Harvey's, White Castle, etc etc but if a precedent is going to be set by keeping the McDonald's article, I can't in good conscience vote to delete an article about a competing company. (For the record I'm abstaining from voting on the McDonald's article because at this point a delete/keep vote will make little difference). 23skidoo 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and delete the McDonald's one too. Jefferson Anderson 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As-well as the article being irrelevant, you can tell just by the title that it doesn't belong on wikipedia.' Telly ' addict  16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Burger King if there's anything salvagable. Also, please avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. -Ryanbomber 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a logical subarticle of Burger King, which as a major international brand (even if not at the level of McDonald's) receives media interest in its menu changes. The information is not indiscriminate (though much of the other brands section could be trimmed) and WP:V/WP:OR issues may be dealt with through cleanup or dispute resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination). --- RockMFR 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the creator and primary editor of this article. (Jerem43)

The are several reasons I created the article: Based on these facts, the 'Burger King menu items article is not trivia or just a list of menu items, but instead it helps to show some of the corporate strategies (e.g. demographic targeting, co-branding and local market awareness) BK employs in competing in the global market.
 * 1) To help show how BK adapts it product lines for the local taste across the globe. Being a large multinational corporation, Burger King has chosen to adapt its product lines to the markets they are operating in. The Burger King menu items article is in fact showing a facet of the corporate business strategy BK has chosen to employ as it expands globally.
 * 2) There were numerous commentaries in the Burger King Talk section about article being US-centric, specifically the Products and Advertising sections. Because of the large number of local menus and advertising programs BK has around the globe, to add all of the information from all global menus and advertising would make the primary article too large and unwieldy. With this in mind, I created the two secondary articles Burger King menu items and Burger King advertising to more accurately and thoroughly cover the information.
 * 3) The main Burger King article was over the 50 KB range, because people had added information to the Products and Advertising sections of the article n an attempt to address point 2.
 * 4) After seeing the McDonald's, Ford, Unilever and other articles, there seemed to be a precedence of showing products of these corporations. In each of these articles there there is a master list or table of contents listing the products the companies sell or manufacture. Furthermore that list or TOC have links to secondary articles that give more detail on the products. While the Burger King menu items is a separate article from the main Burger King article, it is providing the same function of the lists that are seen in those other articles. Please note that the there is a request to separate the Ford article into a main corporate article and a separate product article, this would follow the same structural pattern that I used in creating this article.
 * 5) In listing the menu items, I was attempting show how BK uses corporate cross licensing to help grow market share. Specifically, in the Beverages section you will see that BK sells specific products of other companies (Coca-Cola Corporation, Cadbury-Schweppes, Nestlé and Hershey's) to help drive customer sales. It has been shown that people exhibit brand loyalty, and this is one way BK exploits that brand loyalty in boosting its market share.
 * 6) In listing the menu items, I attempted show how BK targets specific demographic markets. If you read the article, you will see that several, but not all, have the demographic target that BK is attempting to reach with that product. (I had been cleaning up other BK related articles and was going to finish the tagging demographic markets of the products, but had not gotten back to the article.)
 * 7) Burger King is not in all markets: China, Russia and many other nations do not have Burger King restaurants. The Burger King menu items article could provide people of these regions an idea of what BK sells. This adheres to the mission of Wikipedia in providing an unbiased informational source. If people of those markets went to BK's corporate web site for that data, they would not be getting unbiased information.

In addition, I am sure that if you research the Wikipedia database you will find similar precedence of having a separate article relating to products sold by a corporation.

Jerem43 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda wat's sup 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed.
 * Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant, while not only manufacturing the product (food), it provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
 * The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
 * Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.
 * Jerem43 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a resterant Jaranda wat's sup 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The point is that a restaurant is specialized form of manufacturing with multiple manufacturing locations and whose product is designed for immediate consumption by its customers. Just because it is a restaurant does not mean that it should be treated any differently than the other manufacturing companies listed in Wikipedia. The article is not just a list of products, but a slice of the way BK targets its consumer base: it has data on the demographics the products target, reasons why it chooses to remove products from its menu and what BK does to its menu to compete in "foreign" markets. I fully intend to expand the article further to explain the process BK bring its products to market (I worked in the hospitality industry for 25 years and have experience with market development of products), which will help make the article truly encyclopedic. Please reconsider your request for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Ah, so you are arguing that Burger King outlets are not the same as other stores, they are actually (manu)factories? I would be interested in some evidence to back this claim up, especially considering that, where applicable, local licensing authorities class them as retail outlets *not* factories, and Burger King agrees. In the UK, for example, Burger King would not be allowed to open one of their factories in an area designated for retail. I suspect the same holds true elsewhere. Could anyone give me an example in the US, say, where a shopping mall contains a mixture retail outlets, Burger Kings and a steel mill? Markb 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:


 * man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing
 * Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r
 * Function: noun


 * What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:
 * man·u·fac·ture
 * Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-
 * Function: noun
 * Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand
 * 1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery
 * 2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor
 * 2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery
 * 3 : the act or process of producing something


 * Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per my comments at Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination). ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the article, while I'm not sure why it exists, contains useful and interesting information.-- danntm T C 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ILIKEIT Jaranda

wat's sup 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT, if you actually read it, says that liking the subject of the article is not a recommended argument to keep. Feel free to point to it when someone says "Keep because I love Burger King food, it's delicious." There is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to disparage or invalidate the arguments of others when they say the article is useful, interesting or well-written. --Canley 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL which is about the same Jaranda wat's sup 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory.  Iced Kola(Mmm...) 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete - as a snippet of modern life quite it's an interesting page, but its noteworthiness evades me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kripto (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, a menu, or an almanac, all of which this article really is. Belongs in the dustbin with the former article on the A&W menu. Agent 86 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Canley- DE SU  03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, hold the onion...hold the burger. See WP:NOT. --Shirahadasha 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Dhartung Winterborn 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - for same reasons I gave on the McDonald's AfD. Wl219 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Burger King is absolutely notable, nobody would even consider deleting an article on them. What are they notable for?  Serving food.  Accordingly, having information on the food they supply is essential for Wikipedia.  I suppose this article could use some clean-up, maybe more of a historical perspective, but that's improvement, not deletion.  I've said more on this subject in the McDonald's one, but basically, the nomination is flawed, and frankly, I do think any restaurant that gets an article on Wikipedia could quite possibly deserve an article on its menu.  Disk space is cheap folks, and if we don't cover the food provided by these companies, well, I'd say that would cause problems.  Providing more information is what Wikipedia is about, not less.  Yeah, listing everything sold by Wal-Mart or Amazon might be a bit much, but listing all the software made and sold by Microsoft?  Or Apple and their computer models?  Or Ford and their cars?  Or Coca-Cola and their beverages?  Of course not.  Mister.Manticore 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. So the precedent is set. Every out-let's offerings are to be listed on Wikipedia. What do I care? It's not my disk space that's going to be stuffed full with this. I made my annual contributions for a free encyclopaedia, now that it's become a cheap listing site I known not to bother again. Enjoy. Markb 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not feel you are correct in your understanding. Every outlet will not be included, only the menus of restaurants which are notable enough for inclusion.  Thus mom and pop hamburger stand will not be covered, unless for some reason they, and their menu is notable. The same goes with every individual McDonald's or Burger King.  Or even some sections of franchisees.  I might understand your complaint if this was say a list of a restaurant chain's stores and their menus/addresses.  But it's not.  That would be a problem.  But the overall pattern?  Completely reasonable to cover.  Also special events, say, if the McDonald's in some special location has some super-food item that gets heavy news coverage.  Your arguments about size are also not recognizing something:  Wikipedia is not not paper, which explains why it's perfectly feasible to include this information.  It's really no different than having an article for each and every member of the US Congress, and every other legislative body in the world.  That may not be information you care about, but to me, not recognizing its importance is hard to fathom.   Mister.Manticore 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am getting so tired of this slippery slope fallacy being trotted out at every second AfD - that if we keep an article like this, then notability gets thrown out the window and every single restaurant in the world will be allowed to have their menus on Wikipedia (or should I say Menupedia!!!). That's just not the case: these articles are easily manageable in size and scope, and the community will quickly act against any non-notable backstreet bistro putting their menu on Wikipedia. --Canley 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...right, just like they said with Pokemon, Gundam, and all the rest, one article won't lead to others. Thank you for denying reality and proven history. -- Elar a  girl  Talk 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying that one article won't lead to another of course. I'm saying I have faith in the Wikipedia community to judge notability in such cases where the strongest argument for deletion seems to be "it's cruft" (tantamount to "I'm not interested in it"). Obviously the concept of an article on every Pokemon really rubs some people up the wrong way, but if others want that information and are willing to maintain it, and there's considerable community support then what's the problem? I presuming you're not suggesting that Pokemon and Gundam aren't notable enough for an article. So in this case, McDonalds menu items should be OK because McDonalds is notable. Jimmy's Burger Bar menu items is not and would not survive an AfD discussion, it's that simple. --Canley 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And to show that articles on various Pokemon and Gundams haven't destroyed Wikipedia....well, witness the fact that Wikipedia continues to exist and function. Mister.Manticore 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Jerem43 is going around user talk pages asking people to keep the article Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One example is not enough to bring me any serious concern, but I'll leave a message on his talk page if it bothers you. Mister.Manticore 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. Jerem43 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the request from the users page and will refrain from doing it again. Jerem43 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep After looking over the page again, I don't really see why this should be deleted. If the article were simply "Whopper, French Fries, Soda" etc then I'd understand a delete, but this goes into so much detail that I simply can't vote to delete it. -Ryanbomber 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless the McDonalds one results in a delete consensus. Otherwise you're being NPOV :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT -- also, please note that just because something is interesting or useful does not warrant inclusion (see WP:ILIKEIT). /Blaxthos 00:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what argument do you have for deletion? WP:NOT includes a lot of things, such as travel guides, memorials and instruction manuals. Or dictionaries or Soapboxes.  This is not one of those.  So, perhaps you could articulate your issue with this article? Mister.Manticore 02:33, 5 February 2007 (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.