Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A&W Restaraunts 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 delete. Sango123 17:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how a menu belongs in an encyclopedia Nuttah68 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: definately no need to go down this road. Were not an advertising service for A&W, and there is no need for an individual article on A&W's menu. Any significant menu items can be easily mentioned in their article. --Hetar 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless collection of data. Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, also advertisement, listcruft... good lord. Tychocat 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruftburger with extra cruft. Jammo (SM247) 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisement, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of info. --Coredesat 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Lord! Delete ~ trialsanderrors 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Green caterpillar 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, have you seen McDonald's menu items? Ifnord 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now and that has an Afd Nuttah68 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that AfD is nine keep to one delete. I understand the argument, "But the McDonald's menu item article is a real article." But, IMHO, that's cause for improvement not deletion. Ifnord 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The items listed don't even match what is listed on A&W's web site at [1]. --Metropolitan90 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the article title misspells "Restaurants". --Metropolitan90 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, the reason it doesn't match the website you linked, is because that's the Canadian menu and the site is American... NetStormer 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I laughed so hard I cried. Anand^(talk) 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like A&W, but come on! Though maybe could be incorporated into the article for the restaurant, if it isn't already. --BennyD 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, despite how delicious this is. Now I need a rootbeer. Agent 86 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have articles on nearly every food one might eat, and some many wouldn't. This is useful and not advertising any more than any reference to a business, hotel, restaurant, commercial service. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pointless list. --DaveG12345 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think this is a little different from McDonald's menu items because 1) it's a list 2) it's a smaller chain 3) the international variation section seems to be what makes the McDonald's one notable. gren グレン 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a pretty bad sign when I can't even look at the title without chuckling to myself. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing that makes it... standout in my mind. JJJJust 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero-context listcruft. The McDonalds menu article is a) actually an article and b) chock full of context in the list sections. Aside from the obvious, no comparison. Deizio talk 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• just thought i'd put in my 2 cents on this. I'm a long time worker on the A&W article, and I had made a separate page for the menu a few weeks ago. Surprise, surprise, it was deleted a week later. then another person went and made another one as per my suggestion on the A&W Restaurants talk page, before he made it the rest of the way through the talk page. I'm saying Delete only because it's been tried before. and when it is deleted (which it most likely will be) I'll put the original text back on the page from before I made my first attempt at it. Sorry for being so long winded, but I felt that I needed to explain. NetStormer 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Less notable than McDonald's menu and doesn't contain substantial info. If there were actual articles on the menu items as is the case with McDonald's, a list would be appropriate, but this is just listcruft. Ace of Sevens 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay; it's clear that it's not going to be kept, but I want to make clear my reasons for moving the material to this article (I am *not* the original author of the actual content). As (to all intents and purposes) this list was reference material, it was badly positioned amongst the primary article content, where it disrupted the readability of the main article body. Whilst it could have been moved to the end, I felt that it was likely to grow and be added to. To avoid the parent article becoming overly long, I felt it made more sense to put it in its own list article. Some points...
  • If you doubt my reasons, see my first comment and later discussions about this.

I do not like articles becoming unreadably bloated with in-line lists and factoids. However, *if* such material belongs on Wikipedia, the best solution is to make it easily accessible to those who want it, without it getting in the way of those who don't. Hence the separate article.

FWIW, had I known that NetBurst had already attempted to create a separate article, I wouldn't have tried again. Fourohfour 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and neither is it a service for advertising A&W -- that's quite apart from the misspelt title. - Motor (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, also advertisement, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not --Starionwolf 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just as good as any other fast food menu list. --JJay 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.