Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Menu


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Secret Menu

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently non-notable and unencyclopedic collection of rumours and heresay without reliable sources. The links and sources given only contain user contributed content with zero fact checking. All other similar (vendor specific) articles have been deleted or merged with the article about the respective business itself. Not to mention that a company policy of "make everything the customer wants" hardly constitutes a "secret menu" as insinuated in most examples. Latebird (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no way could any of this be sourced (except maybe the In & Out Burger ones). There are very many items that you can get at a fast food chain just by asking. I could probably get popcorn chicken in a Gordita at my local KFC/Taco Bell if I wanted, for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although fun, this article is really just a reposting of its main source which is nothing like a reliable source. And come on, Burger King's main claim to fame is "have it your way." So how is the fact that you can substitute  mustard for mayo a "secret"? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was news to me. I didn't know Burger King even had mustard, and I eat there all the time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was news to you that a hamburger place would have mustard?? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment In & Out has a secret menu, but that's the only one on the list I've heard of as such. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't others (for example, at Burger King I often order a double cheesburger combo even though that's not on the menu), but other than In & Out I don't know of any that are as formal.Tyrenon (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like STeve says, yeah, it's fun, but I'm left with the impression that at least a few of them are regional items (i.e., Jamba's "Screaming Orgasm"), and Starbucks I recall merely removed the short item from the menu - no big secret there, just have to do a little research.  It is, in short, WP:OR and WP:SYN. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * !Vote is changed, see below. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fun, but not entirely notable, verifiable, or universal. Though if anyone wants to try and verify the article's claims, go to Jamba Juice, and ask for a screaming orgasm, be my guest. ;) Zivlok (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Menu as "secret menu" is somewhat likely search term. Article almost entirely depends on the Consumerist article entitled "Really Big Guide to Secret Menu Items".  Just redirect to "menu", and add the Consumerist article to its external links section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Went ahead and added a mention of "secret" menus to "menu" article with Christian Science Monitor as a source.  Still recommend redirect to "menu" as that will allow sourced paragraph on secret menus to grow, and avoids destroying this article which may be improved in future.  Would be bold and do the redirect myself but deletion rules say not to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * or Keep. A Google News Archive search for "secret menu" against names of restaurants known for them is returning about 18 relevant and unique articles.  A few of them appear to quote the blogs which makes a few of those usable as primary or SPS.  It looks like the "secret menu" article is sourceable after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfryerchef (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe a weak keep, and we just go on WP:IAR. I'll have to think on that one.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When sources get discovered during the AFD but aren't worked into the article, the closing admins don't always say keep. But those sources are a good argument for a redirect without destroying the article, because we've demonstrated the article is sourceable if recreated.  Redirect will preserve revision history of the article for non-admins to see. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. Changing my !vote to Redirect to Menu.  Thanks for changing my mind. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (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.