Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. I have no doubt at all that the same outcome will result after seven days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chili burger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why is this article on wikipedia? Is it important enough for its own article? Isnt there a rule that says that there has to be something somewhere saying that this is important? Most of the article is about how other things other than chilli burgers are important like the whole history section. If they are so important shouldnt that content be in separate articles about those things? GotGlue (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Creating AfD is the account's only edit to Wikipedia. The AfD banner was not placed on the article page but I've now done this. Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 06:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No policy-based reason for deletion has been given and the article, which hasn't changed since March, doesn't match the description in the nomination: the whole article is about chili burgers and their history. It seems well sourced, too, so there are no concerns about notability. Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No comment on the nom, but this has already shown to pass WP:GNG by virtue of the sources. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Concerns about a history section's scope hardly warrants deletion. I don't know if the nominator's questions are supposed to be rhetorical, but if not then those are questions that should be asked before nominating an article for deletion. - Sudo Ghost 10:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Nominated before and the keep case there seems strong to me. Stalwart111 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, I almost closed this outright - but, even with a flawed nomination, that's a little quick for me. So, keep on the merits and as per above. Plenty of sourcing here to support an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt that chili burgers are notable. Andrew³²⁷ 12:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Clearly notable with multiple reliable sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Suitably notable with plenty of sources. Nom fails WP:BEFORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oknazevad (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 2, 2013‎ (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.