Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger Wars


 * 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   redirect to History of the hamburger in the United States. The rough consensus clearly favors some sort of deletion, in which a redirect should suffice given the discussion at hand. –MuZemike 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Burger Wars

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dicdef, stating the obvious. I found no sources except for articles that just used the words "burger wars". One source is NNDB which is not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete What a waste of an article, as this could have been more than a dictionary definition. The competition for market share between McDonald's and Burger King, and the changing fortunes of other competitors, is notable.  The links appear intended to show the existence of the phrase "burger wars".  Maybe it's covered somewhere else (to some extent, it is in the articles about the individual franchises).  It's like having an article entitled "World War II" and seeing only the sentence, "World War II was a war fought between 1939 and 1945." Mandsford 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - how are the new York times and the nation restaurant news not reliable sources? Theses two sources easily meet the standards of reliability and show notability and verifiability. It is a stub with citations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the sources don't discuss the concept of "burger war" as a whole, just in the context of other things? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded it and added some more citations. The citations explain the situation and directly refer to the competition. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because the article starts out: "The Burger Wars is a term..." The term "Burger Wars" is not a suitable topic due to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  The Burger Wars themselves should be covered in hamburger, fast food, and/or McDonald's and Burger King. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I have edited the article and it no longer starts with that phrase. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to History of the hamburger in the United States. We ideally should have coverage of the actual wars somewhere.--Milowent • talkblp-r  06:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Milowent's suggestion. A great idea. KeptSouth (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirection doesn't get us that coverage, and this is at least a start to such coverage. Merger, rather than redirection, to a new History of the hamburger in the United States section would do so, albeit that this would comprise the history of the restaurants rather than the history of the foodstuff. Jerem43, what you've fallen foul of is the unfortunate and widespread tendency to use slang names as article titles.  "Burger Wars" is not the formal name of the subject, and is more slang used in newspaper and magazine headlines.  It is a name, but it's not how serious treatments of the subject properly address the subject.  This stuff is part of the economic history of fast food restaurants in the U.S., and there are sources discussing how they have competed with one another over the years.  In such cases, it's best to point the slang name to a more formally titled article and work under the formal title. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a "dicdef" (!?) - it appears that TenPoundHammer is confused in his use of this term and it seems to be a DONTLIKEIT nomination. Mandsford argues delete because the article at present is not good enough. I argue keep because existing references from NY Times and LA Times use the term.  How can TenPoundHammer  say "I found no sources" - when sources are easily found, i e.g. Gscholar Enacting competitive wars: competitive activity, language games, and market consequences The Academy of Management Review, 2004; or Marketing Mistakes, (10th Ed.).  The same book also has a chapter on Cola Wars. Wikipedia also has Browser wars and probably many other notable competitive wars for which sources exist, irrespective of whether somebody like the subject or not, if the article is incomplete or not, or if someone care to look for sources or not. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (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.