Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's 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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

McDonald's menu items
Wikipedia is not a repository of menus Nuttah68 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

keep great list, not an ad...informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak Keep. More than a simple list, obviously a notable topic, far too big to be merged into the main McDonald's article.  Tevildo 20:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep links to a few unique McDonald's products (eg. Happy Meals) and less notable products should be merged into this, but other than that should be trimmed. I am not impressed to learn what McDonald's puts on their hamburgers. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tevildo. Subarticle of McDonald's. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of minority interest, perhaps, but of some value.--MichaelMaggs 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, how is this not WP:OR? Is this entirely taken from the two books cited? ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia is looking more like a phone book or directory or dumping ground of everything with stuff like this and less like an encyclopedia. Maybe, just maybe (and I doubt it), this might be for Wikisource. Agent 86 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There was a Taco Bell menu item list that was deleted (can't find the link for it, though), so there's precedent. Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly both more useful and more verifiable than the numerous lists, categories, and articles about minor characters in fictional universes and video games, songs, etc. McDonald's is probably the largest chain of restaurants (charitably so called) in the world. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because I think the international variation is important.... however, I have a problem with full keep since I'm voting delete on List of A&W Restaraunts menu items. I think the fact that this isn't a list and discusses makes it more notable. gren グレン 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We may want to consider deleting McDonald's menu in Canada for all those who think this is of borderline notablity... gren グレン 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with that suggestion. --DaveG12345 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Lengthy and informative article, especially the part about international and regional variation. Amazinglarry 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's worth a keep, if only for the international variations section. JJJJust 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I still haven't seen anyone address the WP:OR question. Either it's from the two books it cites, in which case it might be copyvio, or it's original research. Useful, notable, etc. don't override those two. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right... it's not cited and it's either OR or they didn't cite where the knowledge came from (which doesn't necessarily make it copyvio... but, plagiarism)... but, I think a references tag will cure that... and, if something isn't sourced after a while it can slowly be removed as it's questioned. gren グレン 00:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much of an OR problem: It says the U.S. list is taken from their homepage and I think the regional variations could be sourced with various international McDonald's websites as well... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, of interest given regional variations and past products. Current menu items don't fall under OR as anyone can verify them. Past items and info might be debatable but not close to Jimbo's "physics cranks" arguments against OR.  Dei zio  talk 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps tag for cleanup. Much as I dislike endless lists, IMO this is a valid article about a notable company with enough history and international variety to make the topic non-trivial. It could use some editing to make it less list-like and more article-like. --DaveG12345 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. McDonald's may be a notable company, but are we going to end up with separate articles listing the menus of all notable fast food restaurants?  It would be absurd, and I fail to see the relevance or importance. ---Charles 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the various reasons given above to do so. Silensor 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting and fun-to-read article. Hektor 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete McDonald's in different countries often have different menus. This does not list them all.  Menus are unencyclopedic anyway.  If you want to keep it maybe a very abreviated summary should be merged into McDonald's instead.--Konstable 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What silliness! --Philopedia 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 1. its all true 2. It is very informitive and interesting 3. It's more than just a menu it has a lot of info that you wouldn't find anywhere else. ILovePlankton 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep interesting and useful article, certainly meeting notability criteria. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete per nomination. --Starionwolf 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Week keep, it's informative. -- 9  cds (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Belongs in an encyclopedia, far too much information to merge anywhere. Royalbroil 04:54, 30 June 2006 (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.