Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Hamburger

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 of the debate was KEEP, but move to California cheeseburger. I'll do this by moving California Sandwich since it is wikified better and slightly longer, and then redirecting the other one. -Splash^talk 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Hamburger and California Sandwich

POV original research and Simpsons-cruft offering a unique interpretation of one obscure joke. There are just 106 Google hits for "california hamburger" simpsons and 192 for "california sandwich" simpsons. Both articles are virtually identical. In the unlikely event that these articles are kept, a better title would be "California cheeseburger", which is what the actual Simpsons joke referred to. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find this very offensive to the high quality deliciousity of the california hamburgers I get in the bar/restaraunt underneath the firehouse all the time :-) Search 4 Lancer 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. Well known Simpsons reference. -- JJay 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Justify your vote, please. -- JJay 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what I consider to be evidence. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I remain totally unconvinced by your vote. -- JJay 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nor do I care. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Good, glad we agree. -- JJay 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:POINT, people. -Colin Kimbrell 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're supposed to take a left to WP:CIVIL. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        His first reply to your first comment seems to imply that he's voting Keep in part because you didn't provide a justification for your vote. As such, WP:POINT seems applicable. Not that a reminder to be civil is ever a bad thing... -Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would never vote Keep because someone is voting delete. The individual votes do not concern me. However, I will also not respond to someone who has voted without providing any comment or justification for their vote and certainly not as part of a one-word challenge, as demonstrated above. -- JJay 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 17:03, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Wiki is not paper. Note: an extensive constellation of Simpson's articles is one of the examples in this discussion. Although the article should be under California cheeseburger, if that is the original reference... -- Geo Swan 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then it should be under the original reference along with (Simpsons) as per my note above, in case somebody decides to come along and make an article on that. Search 4 Lancer 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't understand this comment. -- Geo Swan 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's saying that it should be moved to California cheeseburger (Simpsons) instead of California cheeseburger, to lessen the chance of confusion with an actual real-world sandwich. I don't agree, but so be it. -Colin Kimbrell 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all three to The Secret War of Lisa Simpson. Very little web presence for something that's supposedly in broad usage. Seems too minor to even merge back to parent episode. -Colin Kimbrell 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obscurity is in the eye of the beholder. It is verifiable however, agreed? -- Geo Swan 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Potentially, though I didn't find any citable sources for it. As for the obscurity concept, you're right about subjectivity, but on some level, all decisions are subjective. The use of community consensus for matters like these helps to ensure that this necessary subjectivity is, at a minimum, internally consistent. -Colin Kimbrell 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, move to california cheeseburger. There should be a category for obscure simpsons quotes.--Marvin147 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to California cheeseburger and clearly illustrate its connection to the aforementioned Simpsons episode. A Google search came across this transcript which to quote:

Chief Wiggum: " Now, what I am about to show you next may shock and educate you. Hold onto your values as we step through the looking glass into a hippie pot party. [flicks a switch, lighting a mannequin with a joint crudely stuck to his mouth] While Johnny Welfare plays acid rock on a stolen guitar, his old lady has a better idea. [lights up another mannequin, of a woman opening wide to eat a baby sandwich. (That's a sandwich with a baby in it, not a really tiny sandwich.) The crowd gasps] That's right, she's got the munchies for a California Cheeseburger."

The author of the transcript comments:

"Not to trod on Haynes Lee's territory, but I think I spotted an urban legend when Chief Wiggum pointed out the "California Cheeseburger." According to legend, a couple leave their infant child in the care of a teen-aged babysitter and enjoy a night on the town. When they return, the obviously stoned babysitter reports that the baby is fine, and the turkey is in the oven. "What turkey?" the parents ask themselves - until the horrible truth about what's <really> cooking hits them..."

Tom Foolery 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Snopes page referencing this legend can be found here.-Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 10 January 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.