Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon sundae

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 keep. Merge discussions, if desired, can be had at the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon sundae[edit]

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

Old fad with little/no continuing press. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 07:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm...erge to List of Burger King products#Other. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Burger King products#Other and/or the Denny's article, as both establishments seem to have offered this dish See this article from June, 2016 noting Denny's version. There was an early attempt to redirect the article to the main Burger King article right after the article was created in 2012. That was reverted by the creator. As it stands, the article is too narrow and of limited notability for a standalone, but it might work in the list article for Burger King products and/or as a mention in the Denny's article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples provided below; more in addition to these are available. Notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, those sources aren't very good. As well, a more practical approach is more relevant here. Though it arguably could pass GNG, it's not worth it to keep four sentences of text about a BK/Denny's invention when it could be stuck in an article about those businesses or about the bacon mania of the time. I will individually pick apart these sources if necessary.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Almost all of those stories/references are dated June 2012, when the product was rolled out. There are a couple of stragglers (July, August), two early bird previewers in April, one undated and one for Denny's. It just had no lasting power, like many others (I'm looking at you, McDonald's mediocre 12). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Northamerica1000 mentioned, notability is not temporary, and there's no "lasting power" requirement. If significant coverage exists - no matter how old - general notability is established. The nomination statement here is fundamentally flawed for that very reason. Still, I figured I'd relist to get more thoughts on whether to merge or keep the article as a standalone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NorthAmerica is right, notability is not temporary. Argument to merge this to two different restaurant chain articles suggests that in fact it is better to have this one article covering the topic, which can be briefly linked from the other two. Merging and redirecting to something like a list-article of weird desserts would be another possibility, if this topic would be covered as a list-item there, and the restaurant chain articles could then link to it there. But no good merge target has been suggested, and I don't see why it shouldn't be a standalone article anyhow. --do ncr am 23:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, plenty of "notable" articles get merged just because there's not enough substance or interest for its own article. See Donald Trump email controversy for one. This sundae article could very easily take up one line in the BK article and one line in the Denny's article (if needed).

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Burger King products#Other. The Dennys one is not mentioned in the article so if someone wants to add it to that page then there are no attribution issues. Lots of different fast food joints offer similar meals so I don't see the problem of having two potential merge targets, especially as this one seems the primary topic. We basically have a Wikipedia:Permastub here that would fit into the main article easily. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not temporary... and now I'm hungry. Lepricavark (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The sundae is served at multiple restaurants and passes notability rules per the list by Northamerica1000. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't an exclusive product to just Burger King and it is notable with coverage in multiple sources. -- Dane ^talk 01:58, 17 January 2017 (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.