Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the burrito

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 merge/redirect. Will proceed with redirect, any content deemed worthy of merging can be pulled form the article history. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the burrito

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

Article is essentially a collection of trivial 'slow-news-day' pieces about burritos. Serious concerns relating to notability and undue weight. Any significant information should be merged to Burrito#History. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burrito#History, per WP:MERGE rationale 'context' & the tendency of much of the information in this article to lean heavily towards the unencyclopaedic 'novelty' end of the spectrum ("World's largest burrito", burrito eating competitions, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this comment. My suggestion is for a third party group of individuals (individuals that have not been commenting frequently on the Talk page) to go through the article for verifiable encyclopedic material and to propose the text to include in the main Burrito article for the merger. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Close The tags have been put on the Burrito article and there is a healty discussion going on to cull and merge the information. I would assume that once this has been done that a speedy G6 will be used... - Pmedema (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator and main proponent of the article, while nominally agreeing to merge the article, is actively resisting the removal of information that is trivial in nature[1] and removing tags other editors (not me) have added in relation to problems with the article.[2] It therefore seems this process may not be straightforward. Perhaps an RFC??--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, please stop spreading misinformation on Wikipedia. I did not agree to merge the article; I proposed the original merge on the talk page, and I agreed to remove material on the talk page. The facts show that you proposed this article for deletion only after being inappropriately canvassed by User:Fcsuper. It would help if you would get your facts straight, as I previously corrected you on your talk page, only to have you repeat the same misinformation again. Clearly, the process is straightforward, and you are welcome to participate and contribute with an informed opinion when you are ready and able. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to first diff linked above. Most of the content restored is trivial and/or advertorial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is neither trivial or advertorial in any way, and I've agreed on the talk page regarding some of what should be removed. Please try to follow the discussion on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissive sarcasm aside, I have read the entire Talk page. If you do not understand that many of the 'points' are trivial, advertorial, and often not even directly related to burritos at all, then there is a serious problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be acting as a proxy for another user, baiting to distract from this AfD, and continuing to make claims about the content that are not based on the facts. I do not believe you have read anything on the talk page, and your continued behavior here is obviously disruptive. If you would like to talk about the subject, you are going to have to do some research on the history of the burrito and review the sources. Until then, there isn't going to be much to discuss. Since you are a single-topic user who only works on Jehovah's Witnesses articles, I would welcome your entry into the world of cuisine, and look forward to your informed opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors... it is clearly unproductive for me to attempt to discuss this matter with Viriditas. I invite other editors to consider the article directly and form their own opinions of its content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a totally valid article spinout. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to burrito#history. Looks like interesting information, but I still don't think it's worth its own article. JIP | Talk 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge Appropriate material, but there is no need to have it as a separate article. I'd suggest merging the entire content to the main article, and then discussing item by item what should be deleted. "Timeline" articles are essentially summarize. They are often necessary when the material is unusually complex, the each sequence of events is a critical part of the content, or particularly helpful for understanding, or the material needs to be related to other events in a chronological fashion. Any history section of any substantial article can be converted or duplicated to a timeline, but I do not think it generally helpful to do so; it s more helpful to add content to make one good article., As for the actual content, I think the names of the various establishments can appropriately be included in the article if there is some actual evidence they are of significance, but I do not see such for most of them. If there is such evidence for them, then a section on famous burrito establishments might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Great content here, but it could easily be condensed into the Burrito history section at this point. Would support forking if size and depth increased significantly. Steven Walling 05:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{_{Subscript text}_{Subscript text}}

Position changed to merge. Okay, let the article grow as part of the mother article. When the content grows beyond a manageable size, it can be forked out comfortably, and without many eyebrows raised. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My concern—and reason for raising this AfD discussion—is that whilst the article's author agrees to add the notable details into the main article, their intention has been (somewhat ambiguously) stated as that of retaining the timeline article rather than a true merge, only stating that this article should conditionally change to a redirect "if it is no longer needed".[3][4] However, the contention is that the trivial entries in this article are not needed, and anything that is notable should be merged to the main article, with a specific aim of changing this article to a redirect (or deleting altogether as it is highly improbable that anyone would ever search for "timeline of the burrito".) Viriditas' resistance to removing the purely trivial entries seems counter to that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that a WP:REDIRECT is implicit in a WP:CONSENSUS for a WP:MERGE, and would suggest that anybody suggesting otherwise is being tendentious in the extreme, and would be subject to sanctions for disruption, if they acted upon that claim. That is certainly implicit in my own 'merge' !vote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a forum to debate what particular items in an article are trivial and what are notable. It is for discussing whether the article's topic is itself notable. It's obviously the consensus here that a history of the burrito is important to have when considering the subject, and not to delete the content in the list wholesale and permanently on the basis of lack of verifiability or notability. We can work out what should be merged and what should be discarded once this discussion has concluded. Steven Walling 09:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, and I am not raising specific entries here. I was explaining that the purpose of my starting this AfD was to determine whether there was consensus not merely to add information from this article to the main article, but also to establish a broader view of whether this article is itself notable beyond the scope of the main article. Apologies if it seemed that I was bringing the debate about specific content here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry to have to say this. This article contains a lot of fun and interesting trivia. However there is no reason to think that the items included add up to a "timeline of the burrito." Burrito should, and probably does, have a section with an overview of the burrito's history. This goes back maybe 1,000 years or more. Notable modern burrito restaurants should have their own articles and a category and list directing people to them. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and Burrito covers the history of the burrito very well.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (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.