Talk:Chili burger
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Merger proposal
[edit]Merge discussion postponed one month Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The reasons I have are:
I have notified all participants from the AfD (save one, who appeared to be indefinitely blocked). I have also notified the Food and Drink Wikiproject. It was suggested in my initial proposal at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal that Hamburger might be a better target for this merge. Personally, I feel that the former is the better target, but I'm not too bothered. Therefore, I felt that it might be better to move the proposal here. Support Merging to Chili con carne[edit]
Oppose[edit]
Previous discussion (copied from Talk:Chili con carne[edit]Below is the discussion as it took place at Talk:Chili con carne. I'm not hatting the discussion, as several points oppose and support should probably be considered still standing.
Discussion[edit]
ANI Notice[edit]FYI, this merger discussion (and more specifically, Danjel's actions in it), have been mentioned at WP:ANI pbp 20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Merge
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the discussion on my talk page, we are going to postpone this merge discussion until January 11, 2013. Over the next month, it is recommended that we all find sources that demonstrate the article doesn't need merging. While it has a lot of sources, they are pretty weak in demonstrating a stand alone article is justified. I will start a merge discussion and stay out of the voting in a month. I would request that everyone act in the best of faith and just try to improve the article, then participate in the discussion in a month. I'm gladdened that Danjel has agreed to let this wait, so that we can reduce the drama and be objective in deciding the best result as a community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of expanding this, as I have previously noted, if someone has LA Times archives access that would be helpful. Additionally, I have sent a note to one group that may be able to provide one or more illustrations relating to the PT's as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I might have that through my school. Whatya want? pbp 16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be curious to see [2], [3], and to a lesser extent (the word counts are not promising that they'll contain new detail [4] and [5]. Have already attempted the top two with Highbeam and Google searches. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I might have that through my school. Whatya want? pbp 16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right now, there are several sources that are of dubious value. We need to focus on sourcing on the subject as a whole, rather than sources that claim a special name or recipe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think a whole section on Ptomaine Tommy's could be developed. That could later be split off to a separate article, or remain no matter what happens to chili burger. Also, if someone could pull all the LA Times Gene Sherman articles that discuss the origin, that would be helpful. I didn't even cite them all, but in 1957-58, apparently this was a big controversy in Los Angeles and he wrote about it a number of times.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is fine. I am not finding any general subject books on "the chili burger", not even a dedicated cookbook, which worries me. I may have to make a trip to an actual library. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe there's a chapter in a book about Chili or L.A. food. A chapter would certainly be enough pbp 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- A chapter in more than one book would be great, if the chapter is devoted to the topic as a whole. I'm betting it exists, I just haven't found it and didn't get to look much today, had to play admin most of the day and didn't get to the library. I will keep looking, suggest others do the same, just dump the ISBN and chapter number here if all else fails, I can access just about any book. Fortunately, NC has a pretty good online library system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe there's a chapter in a book about Chili or L.A. food. A chapter would certainly be enough pbp 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is fine. I am not finding any general subject books on "the chili burger", not even a dedicated cookbook, which worries me. I may have to make a trip to an actual library. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think a whole section on Ptomaine Tommy's could be developed. That could later be split off to a separate article, or remain no matter what happens to chili burger. Also, if someone could pull all the LA Times Gene Sherman articles that discuss the origin, that would be helpful. I didn't even cite them all, but in 1957-58, apparently this was a big controversy in Los Angeles and he wrote about it a number of times.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - If it helps at all, adding cheese to the searches might help too, so that it becomes "chili cheeseburgers", I'm finding a few brief things about various chili cheeseburgers, but nothing yet that I'd be confident in using, mostly just recipes in cookbooks and such. - SudoGhost 03:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a book about the history of hamburgers with a brief mention on page on page 47 about the earliest burgers, and how chili was being served on burgers in 1928. - SudoGhost 03:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- That helps establish the origins, so yes, that helps. I need to research more and see if I can develop a History section, and that will fit right in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've been searching, but unfortunately that's all I was really able to find. I found about a hundred different cookbook recipes and local magazines saying "if you go to restaurant XYZ, try the chili cheeseburger", but nothing else (I only searched on Google Books though, and only for "chili cheeseburger"). - SudoGhost 03:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I did find this; The Varsity here in Atlanta has chili cheeseburgers as one of the main parts of the menu. This probably doesn't really help, but I thought I'd mention on the off chance that it might. - SudoGhost 03:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm gonna make this simple with regards to my opinion. There's enough for a short article or it could be merged with something else. Neither one is a perfect solution, but this debate is missing a huge forest for a single sapling. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really a debate at this point, but a building process that will make a discussion about merging more fruitful and likely to have consensus. To me, this is the proper way to handle it, everyone determining the outcome by their efforts rather than their opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Lede - second paragraph
[edit]That's not clear. Is a hamburger patty common? Sometimes is the chili is served on the side of an empty bun, or always a patty? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- The patty is always there somewhere, the phrasing is just poor. I'm pretty sure that "chili size" is actually usually bunless, and we don't clarify that. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Chili burger is just a hamburger with chili on top, its not a distinct food type onto itself. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Its notability is separate from hamburgers, as shown by the sourcing. See also Talk:Chili_burger#Merger_proposal. But your slander to chiliburgers is duly noted :-). That's just your personal opinion, at least as you've laid out your case. Also the existence of List of hamburgers and all its constituent articles shows there is a consensus against having a mega article combining all of this.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Merger, Speedy Close Discussion as Disruptive: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page. Also, Chili burger is clearly notable in its own right, and Hamburger is clearly not the best of merger targets. Finally, we only recently had a merger discussion; it ended in a SNOW keep. pbp 06:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, we had a deletion discussion, and it closed as keep: That's "keep" meaning "don't delete the information", if anyone still wants to propose a merge, now or later, they may do so on the article's talk page". - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is a legit nomination, however the chili burger is sufficiently distinct from a normal hamburger to have its own article; also, per Milowent. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Merge - After however long since the previous discussion, while there has been work, this article still lacks a sourced claim to notability independent of the other articles linked from this article per WP:GNG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Milowent. Heiro 06:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Chili con carne is just chili sauce with meat in it; there are many, many articles that could be simplified to that sort of description, yet warrant a separate article. A chili burger is a distinct food type, I found a couple of sources (in the discussion preceding this one) that I think show that. It is also distinct enough from hamburger to justify a separate article. - SudoGhost 07:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose--Scaldjosh (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a distinct dish, and with 20 refs, easily passes GNG. The infobox is good, and if merged, that would be gone. Hamburger is a big article, and chili burger would be section lost within, an unbefitting fate for an article with 20 refs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)