Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Restaurants in the United States


 * 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The result was Nom withdrawn and rename per the several excellent arguments presented in the last half of the discussion, with no prejudice against future AfDs. (non-admin close) — Travis talk  01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Restaurants in the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of restaurants in the United States? This is an entirely unmanageable list that will never be up-to-date. A list of restaurants in New York City would be impossible, much less this one. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dining guide. — Travis talk  00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth -timed 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blanchardb. Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is clearly excessive. Superm401 - Talk 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly unfinishable and unmaintainable list. sho  y  00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with everyone on this one. It's the definition of indiscriminate, and it really is unmaintainable; restaurant chains come and go.  This is one of those instances where a Category serves the same purpose, and does it better.  I imagine that there will be the argument that a list points out the redlinks which don't have articles, but with the corporate editing of Wikipedia, and the feeling that restaurant chains are generally notable, I don't think that this would be a problem. Mandsford (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of such redlinks would be an article development resource rather than an actual part of the encyclopaedia intended for readers. The project namespace can be used for such lists.  Moreover, categories do have talk pages.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh my. It's not indiscriminate - what more do you want? List of restaurants in the united states. No more, no less. Completely dynamic, new restaurants open each week, and we shouldn't have to keep a list like this up to date. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 03:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow... unmanagable, indescriminate list... --Jayron32| talk | contribs 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete We don't need such list on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As per nom. Wikipedia does not need this.  Mattie TK  10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow. I'd expect this list to be around the million entry mark.  Completely unmaintainable. MLA (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per "Wikipedia is not a list". --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until it includes the South Side Diner in New Albany, Indiana, it is going to be incomplete, and no doubt there are hundreds of other restaurants of equal local reknown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: OMFG, is someone out there smoking Arkansas Polio Weed? There are about two hundred restaurants in the city in which I live (Boston's immediate southern suburb).  Hell, there are seven or eight within five minutes walking distance of me.  A genuine list strikes me as something that would eat up a measurable percentage of Wikipedia's server capacity, for pity's sake.    RGTraynor  18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I remind you of the olf french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Lobojo (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

*List of WHAT?!?!?! I have to presume the author was joking. Or about eight years old. Ψν Psinu 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete as an indiscriminate and unsourced list. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I remind you too of the old french dictum Ne mordez pas les nouveaux. This user was never welcomed, and he has been given a link to a conversation where a group of people are mocking him/her mercilessly and in a most glib fashion - since his only error was to mislabel the list to make it too general. It is in fact a list of restaurant chains in the US, certainly a valid topic for a list in wikipedia, and not something that deserved this kind of mockery. Please consider striking your comment out. Lobojo (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mea maxima culpa. Not only are you correct, I'm guilty as hell of the behavior DGG describes below.  On actually looking at it past the first few "page downs", that took a heck of a lot of work, regardless of suitability.  Opinion changed to right to vote self-revoked for bad behavior.  Lesson learned. (BTW - the "eight year old" comment referred not to immaturity, but to one's view of the world that everything in sight is everything there is in the world at that age... not that it makes it any fairer.)  Ψν Psinu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Um, yeah.  Delete.  I feel bad for the article's creator.  That must've taken a long time.  I hope xe edits/creates some good articles in the future (regardless of age.)   Keeper   |   76
 * Delete. I don't have to say once more why, have I? Is this going to be some kind of record for the largest snowball? Goochelaar (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I really can't see why it should be deleted - it does not break any wiki rules. It is just one of those incomplete lists. "Indiscriminate" - fix that by creating criteria of inclusion. "Unsourced" - source it! "Incomplete" - comlete it! The list dosent need to include every eatery, only the notable ones, IE the ones that have articles! Lobojo (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is why the list should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a directory, which is exactly what this list is. Mh29255 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, this isn't a directory. That would a list of all resteraunts. This is just a list of of the notable ones. It is like a category just as a list to enable more detail. It should be renamed famous/notable eateries perhaps. Lobojo (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes,  this is nothing more than a directory similar to the white pages in a telephone book, which is specifically prohibited in Wikipedia is not a directory. The list further violates Wikipedia is not a directory by containing non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Mh29255 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ho ho there are no phon enumbers and almost all the links are blue! It just needs to b erenamed to list of notable resteraunt chains or some such. Certainly the cross cats here are notable - fast food in the US not notable? Muslims who work for the NFL, that is not good, Lobojo (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bye, bye. Not exactly sure what your final non sequitur is referring to and don't want to know. Mh29255 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello hello, it wasn't a non sequitur, I was giving you an exmaple of what a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" is. "Resteraunt chains in the US" is not such a example. This article needs to be renamed. Can I do that now please? Lobojo (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to List of Restaurant Chains in the United States. that's what the actual contents is. Its limited to regional ones--not just those in a single metropolitan area.  Almost nobody here seems to have actually clicked on even a few  links enough to see the actual  contents of the article.  It's easier to make fun of it. A list of chains is finite and supportable. Many of the red links are apparently fairly notable chains that could have articles. I'm not happy with the classification, especially since some seem to be in multiple groups.  The table at the end is a very ambitious way to improve it--I dont know if it is practical for a list this size. Keep and name and explain and fix. DGG (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kill the Chef and Delete - do I need explain the problems ??? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and strong rename to List of restaurant chains in the United States. I agree with DGG's argument. The title does make this article vulnerble to a lot of mockery, because a list of each and every restaurant would be obviously unmaintainable. However, the list of chains is much shorter, and serves a fine and sensible navigational purpose. The list is written as a list, not a directory. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - After reading DGG's comment, I took another look at the article. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I probably didn't look closely enough at the article when I first nominated it and now agree that a rename would be a good solution. — Travis talk  12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Echoing Guilty and contrite as well. I will go make three substantive edits to Hail Mary as a penance. Ψν Psinu 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite claims of salvation above, this still turns my screen a decidedly yellow colour. Eusebeus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, and still delete. Thanks DGG, for the reminder that civility is important. (and a gentle prod - telling everyone here that they've made bad faith opinions is a bit incivil as well.)  Some people are apologizing here, so perhaps it was appropriate.  Yes, we shouldn't be making fun of the article or the creator.  However, I stand by my opinion as this list already exists in Wikipedia at List of restaurant chains, which has been here since 2004.  It is edited about once per week, usually by someone adding a weblink to their local diner and then eventually reverted.  It is hopelessly filled with redlinks.  It's been tagged with various tags here and there about wikify this or WP:EL that or WP:NOT these.  It is also ridiculously long, broken out by COUNTRY (which is more appropriate for Wikipedia I suppose -not just US-centric), and should also be deleted, IMO.  If not, then possibly some of the more notable chains listed here can be added to that one.   Keeper   |   76  16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me build on DGG's suggestion. Let's call it List of major restaurant chains in the United States. We don't want a two-restaurant chain in there either. A 10-restaurant chain would be good enough for that list, even if they're all in the same city. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth -timed 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It could then be linked to from a pruned List of restaurant chains, I suppose. — Travis talk  23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep per DGG et al. For those who can't read any French, basically, please, sir, don't bite the newbies. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen several people use "WP:BITE" as a justification for keeping an article; not just this one but others as well. As if to say "it was created by someone who doesn't know any better, so its OK to keep the article so we don't drive them off."  That seems a spurious justification.  Why does the article's raison d'etre depend on who created it (for anyone that does know French).  There are ways of keeping new users contributing positively to the encyclopedia without allowing blatant disregard for established convention.  Deleting unworthy articles is not biting newbies...--Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a listing service nor a telephone book. Majoreditor (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To those opining to keep this, what exactly is this unmanageable list accomplishing, regardless of what we name it, that isn't already accomplished in Category:Restaurants.  If you go there, you'll notice that it has no less than 14 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants by country.  If you go there, you get no less than 55 subcategories, including Category:Restaurants in the United States.  If you go there, you can see that each individual state has a category already.  Why do we need a list called List of major restaurant chains in the United States, or any such naming, when it 1)has already existed since 2004, and 2) is already unmanageable/unmanaged?   Keeper   |   76  17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A list can contain information that cannot be expressed by categories; in this case, see the bottom table. –Pomte 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. As DGG notes, it's obvious that very few of those "arguing" delete have actually glanced at the article, as it consists of restaurant chains rather than "every restaurant in the world" as some seem to believe.  Valid per WP:LIST, could easily be sourced, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unwise to try to read the minds of others. I for one voted for delete, even after noting it was about chains.  In the U.S., even the number of restaurant chains is unmanagably high for a list of this purpose.  Also, there exists Categories that serve this exact same purpose.  There is no need to create a list that is substantially identical to a category. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that Jayron32, and add that I assume that JayHenry meant those that voted without reading. Xe did say most.  A list, in this case (and yes, I've read and understand WP:LIST and WP:CLS.  I know the pros and cons of Cats and Lists and Boxes.  This is an unmanageable list.  If it was manageable, it would have been managed already.  Anyone here that has the mind of keep, have you bothered to look at the the list that has existed in really really bad shape since 2004?, (as long as we're accusing the other side of faithless "votes")...   Keeper   |   76  21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I intend no disrespect to anyone, but the quality of the delete arguments does suggest that this article was not given more than a glance. It says in the very first sentence that it’s a list of notable restaurant chains. I don’t really see it is an assumption of bad faith to observe that there are a large number of comments that are not applicable to the actual article being discussed in this AfD, but instead refer to a hypothetical article that reading the title alone might imply exists, but in fact does not. The assertion that it could be handled by categories is also not accurate. Again, I’m not assuming anything when I say that List of Restaurants in the United States could not be categorized, because it’s a table. And it’s not a perfect table, but if the people so gleefully voting delete and insulting the article creator instead pitched in and tried to improve it a little bit and see what happens it probably could have been a pretty good, and encyclopedic, table.  Again, I mean no disrespect to those of you who are interested in engaging in discussion like Keeper and Jayron.  But it’s actually a little bit tragic to me that most of the culture of AfD is so disinterested in improving our encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you JayHenry, for clarifying your message. I completely agree with you about "insulting the article creator.", and I stated as such in my very first comment in this thread.  I also hope  that you didn't feel disrespected per my comments as it was not my intention.  It just seems that the keep "votes" have been equally "knee-jerk".   Have you looked at the 2004 article?.  I guess all I'm asking is for someone to tell me that this current "list", up for debate, is any different than that wholly unmanageable list that has been here for over 3 years.  Yes, I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I love every minute of it.  I am also here to be sure that the encyclopedia is not filled with articles that are unwieldy, unsalvagable, unmanageable, and have at least a hope of one day being featured, for really, isn't that the goal of every list/article?  This list, IMHO, doesn't stand a chance.  If it did, the previous attempt, as I've linked to 3 times now, would have accomplished it.  It's just too big.  It's too dynamic.  It's too everything.  It really doesn't belong here, IMHO.     Keeper   |   76  22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm?
Erm, wasn't this AfD Withdrawn by nom above? I am happy to help improve the article, but not if it is going to be deleted. I too echo the view of JayHenry. I feel that some of the delete votes above were simply people browsing the AFD list looking for somewhere to opine and make "witty" remarks. I saw this AfD, and voted Keep. It seemed so obvious after looking at the article for 10 seconds that I added my vote. 20 editors had already voted delete, with not a single word of dissent. If I had arrived 10 minutes later no doubt the article would have been snowballed, a large amount of information lost, and a potential new recruit to wikipedia alienated for no reason. Not upsetting newbies is not a reason to keep an article, but it is a reason to think creatively about how their many hours of selfless work can be used in some way. I am saddened to see that User:RGTraynor has yet to strike out he abusive comment above, the one that voets delete by cogently arguing "Oh My Fucking God". Sad. Lobojo (talk) 23:41, 21 December 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.