Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halal snack pack


 * 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 Keep. The subject (as of this writing) appears to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements without any problems. Yes, there are two calls in this discussion for deletion, but both of these requests focus on a section of the article regarding a Facebook appreciation group - that section can easily be edited down without having to delete the entire article. And at the risk of editorializing, I would like to commend everyone that participated in this vigorous and entertaining discussion. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Halal snack pack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability questionable, article consists mostly of coverage about a Facebook page dedicated to the appreciation of this dish, and contains, for example: "Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group."

I can't resolve this with the other editors on the page, because they revert me and remove maintenance tags. Laber□T 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The article is written entirely upon what reliable sources state, which is what Wikipedia content is based upon. The nominator does not like what reliable sources report about the topic, but please note that Wikipedia is not censored (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Per discussion on the article's talk page and in the nomination here, the nominator here appears to have a strong non-neutral point-of-view regarding the overall topic. North America1000 12:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand your NPOV concern, I merely stated that this is just another social media phenomenon with the typical "flash in the pan" effect. --Laber□T 12:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You state atop in your nomination that the article "contains, for example: Users on the site have been derided by other users at times for putting tomato sauce or salad on the dish, which the site discourages, referring to such users as 'haram dingos'. The site also states that such users who add tomato sauce or salad may be banned from the group." It comes across that you don't like this notion, since you're basing your deletion nomination in part based upon what the sources state, which is properly verified in the article. North America1000 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because that seems like "house rules" that Facebook pages or other social media groups tend to have, and these are things that are not for Wikipedia articles, because these rules are not relevant to the subject and can be changed at any time by any group admin. --Laber□T 13:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have already reported the information; it's irrespective whatever happens at the Facebook group page; Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state. See also WP:BELONG and WP:NTEMP. North America1000 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, on the talk page, you stated, "Yeah, but writing who donated something for whom, who supports Halal food, and that users are banned for putting certain things on their food (!) is not something that should belong in a Wikipedia article." (diff, bold emphasis mine). As such, you come across as not liking what reliable sources state about the topic, so you nominated it for deletion. Hopefully this explains the NPOV concerns I have with your actions thus far. Again, see WP:BELONG. North America1000 13:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the first one is not notable (many groups, movements or corporations donate money, this should only be included if unusually significant), the second one should go to Halal food if it improves the article, and the third one is just ridiculous. --Laber□T 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You come across as thinking that every sentence in the article needs to qualify for it's own separate article per WP:N. This is not how it works. See WP:V, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". Thus far, you have only provided subjective proof by assertion arguments based upon your personal opinions, rather than discussing the coverage the topic has received in reliable sources and how this relates to WP:N. North America1000 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank You for telling me how to formulate this right, so far I've felt a little lost here. Here comes my review of the references: "Case Studies in Food Microbiology for Food Safety and Quality" tells what the meat used will likely consist of, but of course not referencing the product because it was written in 2002. That is OK, so we know the contents, but of course has nothing to do with the notability. "Your Local Kebab Shop Is Now Trending, Introducing Your New Facebook Group Obsession": the video autoplay really caught me off-guard here, ouch. To me, this does not seem like a good source, because it is really just some content slapped together and given a chic title in order to attract clicks. "The halal snack pack: a fast track to a heart attack? Or worse?": they say that this dish isn't something new, OK that indicates some notability. However, the article doesn't tell us much about the subject in question, the last three paragraphs are just about Halal certification in general. There is also an indication that this article is hastly written: It contains the racist remark "signalling a kind of stubborn 'whiteness' that no amount of shredded meat can overcome.". "Senator rates halal snack pack a 10": This does not seem to add much notability, some senator ate the dish and found it to taste very good, I don't know... "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society makes pilgrimage to snack pack ‘Mecca’, King Kebab House": This asserts some notability, however it is just a local news site, and you can really see that by the crappy Photoshop they did. "Halal snack pack: bridging cultures or a recipe for radicalisation? – video": That is the video to the Guardian article. Indicates that they did some research. The three other references concern the "Adelaide AB", which may be similar to the Halal snack pack, but it has not been established that this is really the same thing or at least something similar enough to go into the same article. "Halal, is it meat you're looking for? Hilarious Facebook group where kebab lovers rate their ultimate meat, chips, sauce and cheese combos (and mock far-right groups calling for a boycott of halal food)": Just a report on the Facebook page, meh. "The Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society Is Uniting Australia With Kebab Meat" same as the last one, but at least this includes some info on the controversy surrounding Halal slaughter, which may be used to expand the article to include different viewpoints. Overall, I think there is some notability, but I'm not sure if enough to keep the article. It should also be determined wether this "AB" dish really is the same, or even similiar (it seems to not be Halal after all). --Laber□T 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed as Keep however after going to DRV (discussion) It was decided I closed waaay to early so am relisting it, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Clearly notable, as it is covered in multiple independent sources. My only caveat is that the other variants of the dish do not warrant their own articles and all variants should be discussed here, like "Adelaide AB" (the expansion of the acronym is rather nasty and should only be made if it is sourced). To the other editors here, please note that per WP:AFDFORMAT it is more productive to state arguments for keeping or deleting in your own response rather than making assertions about the validity of other editors' responses, as far as is possible. Roches (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. This well-referenced article clearly meets the requirement for significant coverage in independent sources. I am familiar with this article from its submission at DYK, and can see that it is start-class, awaiting further expansion. That is, the lead contains all the information about the halal snack pack. Other editors could choose to expand on this with additional information about the snack pack itself. Then the supplementary sections of "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society" and "Similar dishes" would not stand out so sharply and seem to "take over" the article. Don't demolish the house while it's in the process of being built. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC) *Keep. but the food pack is notable, not the group., I've removed the information about the group.  DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen them in New York City. They are halal versions of bento boxen. Other than cutting out the coatracking cruft, I don't see any major problems with the article. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the specific arguments provided by Bearian. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Facebook group has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. How is it not notable? Please read WP:V, where it states, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". The article is written entirely from what reliable sources state. North America1000 02:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. as G11 for the Facebook group. Both topics may be notable, but there is no point in having an article that confuses the two of them: they ae not equivalent. It would be the analogy of having a combination article on medicine and the American Medical Association. The net effect is to turn a perfectly viable article on a general topic into an advertisement for one particular group.    I tried to fixit, but was reverted. The best choice at this point is to delete the whole confused article and start over. If a NPOV article cannot be written,on a topic because of this sort of interference, it must be deleted and a new attempt made. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view, content about the Facebook group is not promotional; it's written only upon what the sources state with a neutral point-of-view. The article does not extol any benefits or greatness of the group; it simply provides an overview based upon reports by reliable sources. If a separate article about the group were to be split off from the article, it would likely eventually end up having a merge template added to it to merge it back to the main article about the topic. North America1000 06:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The subculture surrounding the HSP is as notable as the dish itself, and the appreciation society is the centre of this subculture. -Espo 121.219.241.248 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as I've been watching this AfD and it still seems too close including for the appreciation society to have solid independent notability and its improvements yet. SwisterTwister   talk  05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in plenty of independent reliable sources. The political/social aspects to it (including the facebook group) add to the notability, not detract from it. The-Pope (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Is covered by a wide range of sources and is notable. 92.4.96.96 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: article could be tidied up in some areas ('haram dingo'...), but it passes WP:GNG - coverage from a variety of good sources evident Aurora (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the tradition is clearly being spread worldwide, hence there needs to be an article on this new meal that is recognized an appreciated by the majority of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.93.216 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of the article is the HSP, a dish that has been widely popular for many years, and is a notable part of Australian culture, even without the Facebook group. The Facebook group is not notable enough for its own article, despite news coverage, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but information about it is available from reliable sources and it is relevant to the article. Whether the section on the group has been given undue weight is a content issue that can be fixed by editing. Even if an article is poorly-written rubbish, AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline for improvement.  if you feel that other editors are unfairly reverting your changes, AfD is not an appropriate method to resolve it, see dispute resolution. Deleting the article and starting over would accomplish little, since those editors are free to continue editing it...  -- IamNotU (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, the same editor closed this discussion twice and then claimed it was a waste of time. Obviously this is improper. Also, I would have voted keep. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it is a waste of fucking time and you reverting the close is a waste of fucking time, If you would have !voted keep then why the fucking hell revert ? .... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is an abuse of process, I certainly hope when something closes against me it is not the same editor doing it twice and then rubbing it in my face with comment like "I told you it was a waste of time". If you feel I've done something wrong please ANI. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - It wasn't abuse of process at all, The nominator had gone to the trouble of going to DRV where after I relisted it it gained about 7 !keeps ..... It was obvious the AFD was going to be closed as Keep and the nom knew that ..... so therefore the whole drama was a waste of time ....., I wouldn't drag my worst enemy to that place so don't worry you're safe, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:02, 16 May 2016 (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.