Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rally fries


 * 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 Seattle Mariners where it is already covered. Any remaining content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rally fries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. This is an article on some random happening at Mariners games. This is not on par with the Rally cap, Rally Monkey, or Rally Squirrel. Given the branding, this appears to violate WP:PROMOTION, as it only serves as advertising for a company. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be a running promotional gag by the local tv guys... Has no national notability. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article satisfies WP:GNG; the sources aren't overwhelming, but they're enough. There are Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Tri-City Herald articles focused entirely on the topic. This is really the only principle that applies. The other arguments are WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Melchoir (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't say that sources guarantee notability, it presumes notability unless the article is deemed by consensus to not be notable. One way that can happen is if violates what Wikipedia is not, which goes back to what I said about WP:PROMOTION, which you didn't address. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not promotional; it's a description of a topic based on independent sources. Moreover, if it were promotional, that would be cause for a POV template, a note on the talk page, and a cleanup effort -- not an AfD. The AfD process is meant to judge the topic's encyclopedic potential, not the article's present content. Melchoir (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But if it's deemed that all this is is a promotional gimmick, then there's nothing to clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to speak of "all this". We have to distinguish between the topic and the article. The topic can be a commercial entity without the article becoming promotional. Melchoir (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a local tv gag... mentioned in some local papers... having articles on every goofy gag the local tv guys come up with is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular "gag" attracted the notice of professional journalists, which is how it came to satisfy WP:GNG. There's no slippery slope. Settling these questions by drawing a line based on our role as an encyclopedia is exactly what GNG is for. Melchoir (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Local papers might cover the county sock hop too.. doesnt make it worthy of an article here. Any coverage outside of minor blurbs in local seattle papers? Spanneraol (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this characterization. The article's strongest reference is a 28-paragraph article in a newspaper with a daily circulation (at the time) of 128,012, the 78th largest in the U.S.. That's more than a minor blurb in a local paper. The other references are less significant; that's why I said that the satisfaction of GNG isn't overwhelming. The interpretation of GNG can be a judgement call in these cases, but I want us to agree that it is the relevant guideline. And local versus national coverage doesn't matter; again, see WP:ITSLOCAL. Melchoir (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol's point, I believe, is not ITSLOCAL, so much as that not everything that receives coverage is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying the word "local" six times in three comments leads me to think it's significant. :-) Besides, IF not everything that receives coverage is notable, then we need to rely on other principles, and we should be explicit about what they are. If it's not ITSLOCAL, then what exactly is the problem? and can we please focus on it? Melchoir (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Melchoir above. This is the subject of multiple instances of press coverage and thus passes GNG. Stupid? Yes. Oh, well. Too commercial? Then fix it. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have mixed feelings on this and won't vote yet, but I'll note that only one sentence of the page has a reference attached. The page needs a lot of work, and I'm leaning toward Delete or Merge (to Seattle Mariners). — NY-13021 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed that this article has previously been deleted, under the name "Rally Fries". See here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, its amazing how often I see that happen--deleted articles coming back that long go unnoticed.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * merge as a solution, based on the relative lack of sourcing and the relatively minor importance. This would really be much moew helpful with the main article on the team.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: As I am pleasantly surprised by the amount of sources specifically on the topic, its a unique term to this one baseball team, and more pleasant than Freedom fries. BUT, a merge may really be the better solution, under Seattle_Mariners, keeping a redirect.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Seattle_Mariners, keeping a redirect, per Milowent. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is about a promotion, but it is not promotional when multiple independent sources provide non-trivial coverage. In addition to sources in article, see MLB.com and Tri-City Herald. Sporting News mentions it as something to "love about" Safeco. It received a reference in a a book. There's enough sourced information to satify WP:GNG, and the number of trivial references in other sources convince me that this is suitable for Wikipedia, which expands beyond a traditional encyclopedia.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - As others have noted, the sourcing, while (barely) sufficient, is sparse, and has a local feel. Our readership is best served by placing this in context with the Mariners article. As the notable focus of the promotion, this is a natural home for this information. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted the article currently uses only two references, but numerous other references can be integrated from "Further reading" section with others identified in this AfD to justify a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect, as the content already at Seattle_Mariners appears as complete (with the exception of the illustration), is better written, and is sufficiently sourced. Leaving two articles essentially duplicates content, and efforts towards improving both, with little benefit to our readers. (Don't delete in any case, this is close enough to GNG that keep would be a better option, in my view.) --joe deckertalk to me 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect per Joe Decker SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (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.