Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fast food restaurants


 * 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 - Being verifiable, indiscriminate, and notable are not issues for this list, because the content is verifiable, follows a clear theme, and can be sourced. Consensus regarding these issues is clear. However, just because the fact that Arby's and the other restaurants on the list are fast food restaurants and that fact can be sourced and verified does not address the real issues of this particlar list. The issue that needs to be the focus of any future AfD discussion is list vs. category and whether this list meets any of the three main list purposes. There was some discussion on these, but not enough to produce a clear consensus, in part because of the distraction of whether the list was verifiable, indiscriminate, or notable. -- Jreferee    t / c  00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

List of fast food restaurants

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is very long and seems to be list of every single fast food restraunt known notable or not. The page is basicly a collection of Internal and External Links mixed in and violates these policys and Guidlines: WP:SOAP, WP:NOT,WP:LINKS, and possibly WP:DIRECTORY  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is verifiable and if it lists non-notable fast food restaurants then they should be removed. It does not violate WP:DIRECTORY, neither do these, ...and I don't get how it violates WP:SOAP. If you feel it violates WP:LINK then remove the links. Tim Q. Wells 01:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris! ct 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are already some dandy categories for these. SolidPlaid 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is superior to the categories because much of it contains redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mayhap the folks who care can userfy the list, and create real articles for the redlinks. SolidPlaid 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete o.O That's a very indiscriminate list. Maybe convert it into a category, with inclusion criteria (e.g. there must be a legitimate wiki article on it). i said 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Another misuse of the word indiscriminate. I don't see how this article fits any of the mentioned policies. How WP:SOAP applies, I can't fathom. WP:LINKS applies to external links, not wikilinks.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would agree there shouldn't be these external links in the article, and they should probably be removed.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it a misuse of indiscriminate? i said 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because fast food restaurants is a commonly used grouping. A list of restaurants that have eight letter names, or that have green signs, would be an indiscriminate list.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, those would be more discriminate lists than "fast food restaurants". Not be semantic, but indiscriminate means lacking in finite distinctions, which, other than "it's a fast food restaurant by someone's standards", this article lacks. i said 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then list them this way: if the Wikipedia article can make the judgment on whether it is a fast food restaurant then it should be in the list. Tim Q. Wells 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to use Wiktionary, indiscriminate means "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless", which I would take to mean you're just making up lists without any thought to whether there is a logical grouping of the list entries. But this is exactly why I've tried to get that language in WP:NOT changed, because it just causes arguments. "Fast food restaurants" (note the plural) returns 1,700,000 ghits, it's a very commonly used category, including tons of articles in periodicals, and directories. And of course we have Category:Fast-food restaurants which would have to be deleted as well. As to a definition, I think it would be generally defined as an establishment where the food is pre-prepared  and counter served.  Citi Cat   ♫  03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So then indiscriminate, by your reasoning, means only a list of items that have nothing in common? Yes, these things, as well as others, have things in common. That does not made it discriminate. If you use "commonly grouped category" that means pretty much anything that has a collective name. For instance, we could say "made in China". According to your definition, that is not indiscriminate, as there is a collective term that they fall under(2.64m ghits). And finally, that definition is flawed, since not every "fast food" restaurant has pre-made food; in addition, wouldn't the capability of special orders disqualify a restaurant under the definition? i said 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There are a plethora of categories much more adequate for this: Fast-food chains of the United States | Fast-food chains of Canada | Fast-food franchises | Fast-food burger restaurants | Multinational food companies |, etc, etc. --Victor falk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories are not more suited because they cannot contain redlinks. Tim Q. Wells 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then a user or project page with red links is suitable--Victor falk 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as this is better covered by a category. Certainly not indiscriminate, but there's a whole lot of information that the cats handle better. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is just wrong. It is better covered by the list because categories cannont contain redlinks, as I said above. Tim Q. Wells 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question to Tim, Hwo in the world would I know the notability of the Red Linked restraunts?  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 03:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Search to find evidence of existence and notability. If nothing turns up, it's not notable (or a hoax) and should be removed. If you get various sources, then create the article. Hmm, sounds familiar... Ideally, all lists should contain sources and inline citations to evidence each entry's merit of inclusion, however this is not usually the case (as with thousands of other noteworthy articles). - Mtmelendez (Talk 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Categorize by country, and remove redlinked chains. Not indiscriminate, but perhaps this would be better suited as a category. J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize in Category:Fast-food restaurants by nationality. This is one of those cases where a category is better than a list, precisely because it prevents dozens of non notable fast food restaurants from being added, as has happened here. I checked several of the redlinked restaurants and the only Ghits they had were this article, so this list isn't being maintained (those non notable restaurants were added months ago), and will continue to be a list that any passing editor adds their local buger bar to. Crazysuit 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but then divide and improve. Indiscriminate can mean several things, and a list of literally all fast food restaurants would be indiscriminate. This isn't--its mainly notable ones that have WP entries (the usual criterion for notability on a list). a list of selected fffr's selected by a rational criterion like notabiity is the opposite of indiscriminate. That said, it's not a good article and should be divided and reconstructed. List of defunct fast food chains, which is one section, would make a good list article on its own. Possibly some of the others would be better as categories unless some information can be given. For areas where we seem to have no information but the name, perhaps articles should be written first. Surely this can be done for Russia, to give one example where theya re all red links.  DGG (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. This is a useful navigational tool for (a) going by blue link to Wikipedia articles about a particular fast-food restaurant chain (b) determining, at a glance, which chains are based where and (c) seeing, by r e d link which chains exist, but about which there is no article.  Fast food restaurants are big business the world over, clogging mankind's arteries regardless of nationality.  Mandsford 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. More proof that WP:IINFO boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The definition of what constitutes a fast food restaurant is reasonably clear and not "indiscriminate".  Referenced criteria for inclusion should appear in the articles in chief for each chain.  Lists serve valuable navigation purposes and call attention to gaps in coverage that categories cannot, since only articles that exist can be categorized.  - Smerdis of Tlön 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, proper for a list.  But please put some navigational structure in there!  2 columns and/or an index; we have templates for that.  Wikidemo 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Better as a category.  Colonel Warden 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable. Using WP:ILIKEIT as an argument is not sufficient reason to keep or delete this. Ihcoyc has made the point that lists can contain redlinks, categories cannot, which is very true. Also, it should probably be kept provided that there are some ground rules as to what can be in the list, and what can't. That way it will make it a lot easier to use for the reader. --Solumeiras talk 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't delete an article or a page because it's not good enough; make it better by editing it and fixing the problems instead. Fast food restaurants is clearly notable enough to warrant a list. This deletion nomination is a bad idea. Rray 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the navigational purpose would be better served by a category and the list is too big to be maintainable. It took over a minute to load in my browser just now.  Cruftbane 21:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, but I agree with what others say, needs better navigation Brooklynl 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as has no sources or content to demonstrate notability. I agree that navigation issues can only be resolved through categorization. --Gavin Collins 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate list, notable, clear criteria for inclusion. Does not violate any of the policies given in the nomination. -- Kudret abi Talk 08:12, 14 October 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.