Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger products

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger products

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

Outrageous promotionalism. There is a quite sufficient list in the mainarticle, so no merge is needed DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i'll admit that the article is not as long as it could be, but the reason provided for deletion is simply wrong:

Reasons for keep:

These items are the major products that are unique to major American company presented in a neutral manner.
This article is not a set of indiscriminate information, and does not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:NOT.
It shows how a company adapts when moving into new markets.
It helps show how a company responds to its competition by adapting existing lines of products or creating new ones.
It is sourced to major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news. All of the content is supported by multiple, independent sources which shows the subject is notable
In-N-Out's menu has a major cult following, with articles written solely about its secret menu in major, national publications.

Additionally, they meet the four standards of notability as stated in the notability guidelines:

There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
The sources are reliable;
The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
I and the other main author generated none of the information, are not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.

This article was created in response to growing size of the main article, In-N-Out Burger, using the WP:Summary style guidelines. I used the Burger King products Article as a general format for this article to ensure that it wasn't a simply a list of products, but an article about the menu, and while it isn't as comprehensive as the BK article, it does provide some expanded information of the company's defining feature - its secret menu. The source articles show it is in fact notable and that this notability is verifiable. Your claim that it is pure commercialism or promotionalism is spurious. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand the concern about promotionalism, but on the other hand, In-N-Out does have a committed following that has led to a massive amount of coverage, especially with respect to the "Secret Menu", so I'm not sure that all this content should be completely removed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that Wikipedia should be a place to get information about anything, and that includes the menu of a popular restaurant. As for promotionalism, I don't think there is any. That is like removing the lists of the highest rated movies because it promotes certain movies. Jacejfrancis (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeremy's well-reasoned and cogent argument. Clearly notable as shown by multiple, verifiable and reliable sources. It makes sense to have the chain's products detailed in a separate article, leaving a summary and link in the main article, especially in light of the separately notable "secret menu" (which is, indeed, not so secret). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it certainly could go more in depth, this article still deserves to be kept. If we have articles about Burger King products and McDonald's products, there's no reason In-N-Out should be excluded, especially on the grounds that the article displays "outrageous promotionalism", which, by reading the text, one can see is not true. If this article does contain any content which reads somewhat like an advertisement (e.g. "100% pure, cholesterol-free vegetable oil"), it's only because the information, which is reliably sourced, happens to favor the company. While some rewording may be necessary, this article should be kept. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2016 (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.