Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McChicken

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 no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep, so please don't cite it to support or oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McChicken

delete Non-notable Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete run of the mill fast food menu item. Ruby 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Menu item from very notable restuarant...not sure if there is a specific policy on this. Foodcruft? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with McDonald's menu items. Depends on how notable it is as to whether it's merged or kept. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable piece of food.SoothingR 11:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. And a comment: McDonald's menu items links to a number of other articles like McRib, etc. If this article is deleted/merged, so should be done for all these other articles. - Liberatore(T) 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with McDonald's menu items. Metta Bubble 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the GFDL, those are incompatible votes. Merges must be accompanied with a redirect for attribution reasons. No biggie, I have casted the same vote before i was made aware of that technicality. Youngamerican 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or fail that merge per above. Does not require its own article. Eusebeus 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The menu article already has McChicken listed and does not require trivial facts, such as when it was created (McCruft). SYCTHOS^talk 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a real food. C'mon, the history on its page is interesting, and if you tried to put that level of depth all in the main McDonald's menu article it simply wouldn't fit. Hundreds of millions of McChickens have been eaten ... that definitely establishes notability. Fight systemic bias against lower-class foods on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• McMerge per Metta Bubble. Too many articles on McD items will bloat the database and cause bit circulation disorders. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with McDonald's menu items as suggested above. A couple of items referenced on this page (Big Mac, Chicken McNuggets) have enough content and cultural significance to deserve their own articles, but all the other McDonalds food stubs should be merged as well. Vslashg 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• changing vote to merge per Metta Bubble. --Kerowyn 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge into Chicken nuggets --GeLuxe 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this sandwich that is notable in and of itself. Youngamerican 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI gave the article a cleanup for quality and structural purposes. The revision is meant to make this a respectable article for a notable food item that is partially responsible for any future heart disease from which I may suffer. Youngamerican 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable enough because it has regional variations and is one of McDonald's best selling products (unlike the McFeast above). We have an article on the Big Mac, so the McChicken should qualify. Calwatch 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cultural phenomenon, sourcing countless late-night debates as to whether "McChicken" means it doesn't actually hafta be real chicken. Also, the average Man On The Street has heard of McChicken, but probably hasn't heard of our other "notable" subjects. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, keep, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.--M@rēino 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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.