- 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: Numbers are roughly evenly split either way. However, AfD is not a vote, and there is certainly a large burden of argument to show that a fast food restaurant's menu is something that belongs in an encyclopaedia. The essential points of the argument that it does belong in an encyclopaedia are:
- it includes information that isn't available elsewhere (i.e. discontinued items). If it isn't available elsewhere, then it isn't verifiable, and it doesn't belong here. I acknowledge that this isn't an argument that has been discussed fully below, as it ideally would be, but verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of writing an encyclopaedia and I consider it more important than any potential argument for me not to consider it.
- RFerreira's argument that someone may wish to read a Taco Bell menu who doesn't have access to a Taco Bell or the Internet. I believe Wikipediatrix and JIP have the weight of argument, in that the only purpose of reading a menu is so one may order food from it; conversely, no-one would wish to read a Taco Bell menu when they have no opportunity to order food from Taco Bell.
- There are also numerous keep arguments with little bearing on policy, along the lines of "it's useful" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - of course it's useful, that's why you'll find this information nailed up in Taco Bell or on their website, but that's not a reason to include it in an encyclopaedia), appeals to precedent (no such thing here), appeals to WP:Pokémon test, and appeals to the incomprehensible (I've no idea why this is "important for culture").
It's a fast food menu, with a liberal seasoning of unverifiable trivia. The argument needed to show that a menu is somehow an encyclopaedia article isn't present here. I expect this to be a controversial close, but AfD is not a vote, and I see no way to summarise the arguments in a way that makes this out to be an encyclopaedia article. Delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing more than a copy of Taco Bell's menu. I don't see any encyclopedic benefit, especially since our readers can be better informed/kept up to date by just linking to the menu on their website. See also, WP:NPS. --Hetar 05:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not explicitly under WP:NOT, but nothing but a chunk of list information that is tantamount more to a recipe. Don't need article dedicated to menus. Anything encyclopedic can be in Taco Bell. Kevin_b_er 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Taco Bell . —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-10 07:01Z
- Merge into Taco Bell. The list of ingredients bulks out the article, giving the impression that there's more content here than there actually is. A shorter version of the menu could be easily incorporated into the main article. --Mako 07:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be advertisement. Doczilla 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, move content to Taco Bell. --TheM62Manchester 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep Taco Bell's own website is not as comprehensive. Discontinued items are not listed there. Skeletor2112 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep potentially useful, merge to the Taco Bell article. - Patman2648 10:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Taco Bell Konman72 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to /dev/null per WP:Whisky Tango Foxtrot WilyD 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge This has useful information, especially since it includes discontinued and seasonal items--not all this is available on Taco Bell's website. The article doesn't read like an advertisement or recipe to me at all. Ryanminier 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge, then delete: a mere recitation of facts that are, in any case, under continual change. We don't have a copy of the telephone book online, and we don't need a copy of the menu of every restaurant in the world. A mention of any particularly notable dishes can be merged into Taco Bell; the rest should go. -- The Anome 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I really can't stand it when people pull out WP:NOT for every AfD discussion, but honestly, Wikipedia is not a menu. AdamBiswanger1 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Taco Bell. --Gray Porpoise 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is advertising, because the significance of each menu item is not established, nor is any attempt made at doing so. Cdcon 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is something that would be out of date evertime Taco Bell does something new. How would maintain it? Let me guess - The Category:Wikipedians who eat at Taco Bell? JungleCat talk/contrib 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, not all Taco Bell locations have the same menu. wikipediatrix 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge -- Taco Bell is notable enough that we should be able to document their menu items here. RFerreira 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why should Wikipedia cover Taco Bell's menu? If you want Taco Bell's menu, go to Taco Bell. JIP | Talk 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should know, that is not economically feasible for all of our readers. RFerreira 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Hmmmm, how much does it cost to go to Taco Bell and look at their menu in your hometown? It's free in mine. The question's moot anyhow, because you don't actually have to go a Taco Bell to read their menu, it's freely available elsewhere online. wikipediatrix 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm won't take you far. You are incorrectly making the assumption that there is a Taco Bell in every country and that everyone who reads Wikipedia is connected to the internet. There are several projects, both complete and underway, which aim to provide Wikipedia in an electronic but off-line format.RFerreira 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Hmmmm, how much does it cost to go to Taco Bell and look at their menu in your hometown? It's free in mine. The question's moot anyhow, because you don't actually have to go a Taco Bell to read their menu, it's freely available elsewhere online. wikipediatrix 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should know, that is not economically feasible for all of our readers. RFerreira 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was completely serious. Sorry you misinterpreted it as sarcasm. And I thought it went without saying that I obviously was referring to those who lived near a Taco Bell. I don't think anyone would bother traveling to another city or country simply to look at a menu! And I really don't think it's Wikipedia's problem if not everyone has internet access, especially for learning about Taco Bell's Zesty Chicken Border Bowl. wikipediatrix 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There indeed aren't Taco Bells in every country. There aren't any in mine, for example. But still, why should I care about the menu of a restaurant? It's not as if I can order food from Taco Bell through Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please too big to merge see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items discussion Yuckfoo 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yuckfoo. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my prior rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What a joke, menu items don't belong here. RobJ1981 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article already provides useful information. To be more viable I think it should include a history, or a nutrition section. The need for this article is definitely there. Since when did we delete articles for lacking information. Besides the menu on the Taco Bell site does not have near the information.Epachamo 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely pointless and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the list of ingredients is excessive, the "discontinued items" is worthwhile and maybe discussion of how the menu has changed over time. Also, are there any menu items specific to certain regions, as there are with McDonalds? Lastly, I'm trying to get on tacobell.com and it's requiring me to upgrade my "flash player", which I care not to. Instead, I get a 404 error page. At least Wikipedia doesn't require proprietary software to view articles such as this. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Massively unencyclopedic, wikipedia is not an advertisement. -- pm_shef 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WTF indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unmaintainable. Varies over place and time, no context. By all means merge anything you want to anywhere appropriate. Dlyons493 Talk 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. —tregoweth (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, important for culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanHalen (talk • contribs)
- Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The appropriate standard is WP:NOT, not WP:Think Outside The Bun. - David Oberst 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge important menu items with Taco Bell - Enzo Aquarius 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. Expandable and useful with more info not available elsewhere (as long as it's sourced) such as in the Other Items section or McDonald's menu items#International variations. TransUtopian 03:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per AudeVivere, the discontinued items argument is most convincing, and we have a similar list for McDonalds menu items. Yamaguchi先生 08:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yamaguchi先生. Ifnord 17:57, 18 August 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.