Talk:Where's the beef?/Archives/2014

Inspiring a campaign 25 years later

If the catchphrase "Where's the Beef?" inspired an advertisement campaign 25 years after the phrase was popular, wouldn't that be just as notable as when it was used in the presidential campaign the same year? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. It needs a WP:SECONDARY source to establish WP:DUE weight. The campaign had many, many derivatives, jokes, and passing references associated with it, and if this is really significant, it needs sources supporting that fact, not just primary mentions. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How about these references?

1. [1] — Patch Media
2. [2] — politifact
3. [3] — CNN

Victor Victoria (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been clearer. I think we need secondary sources to establish that there is a connection between the two campaigns, not just that the WND campaign exists. The first one doesn't mention the billboards or the original advertising campaign, so it's not relevant here. The second one only mentions the billboards in one paragraph, but doesn't say anything about the Wendy's ads, while the third one uses "where's the real birth certificate, wnd.com" which is slightly different, but likewise doesn't mention the Wendy's ads. I don't see any of these making a case that the WND campaign and the Wendy's campaign are meaningfully linked, so it doesn't seem like an important fact to include in this article. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think what you are stating is policy. We certainly need WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability for the campaign. We can, however, use WP:SELFPUB for "sources of information about themselves" to make the connection between the campaign and the catchphrase.

I'll grant you that the first reference was a mistake, and I don't think it makes much of a difference whether Anderson Cooper used the word real. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this isn't about notability, exactly, this is about WP:DUE. If there were a bunch of sources talking about the WND/Wendy's ad connection, that would clearly establish due weight. Put another way: this is basically WP:IPC (in reverse). If the article mentioned any of the "Where's the beef" jokes made on The Simpsons that would need a source explaining why it's significant to "Where's the Beef?" as a whole. The fact that the Simpsons has made such jokes is not in question. Likewise, this ad campaign had very little to do with the Obama's birth certificate, and Obama's birth certificate has even less to do with this ad campaign. Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how 2 sentences + a photo violates WP:DUE. Your argument about the Simpsons made no sense to me, and it sounded like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. I don't watch that show, but it sounds like the use of this catchphrase on that show merits mention in this article. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's not secondary sourced and it's undue weight should be enough reasons for you to stop adding this. It's not something that should be in this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB no secondary sources needed when the primary sources are talking about themselves. As for WP:UNDUE, you cannot claim that when the weight is only 2 sentences. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify -- the billboards have been secondary sourced. WP:SELFPUB allows for the linkage to the catchphrase to be done by a primary source. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Put the matter in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)