Deletion of McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination)

Comment: lists of products like this are |not what Wikipedia is for.  Menu's are essentially a kind of directory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: wow, this article is surprisingly well written for what looks like it should be a list. Talks about the dishes and their history, and in depth international varieties. The information is worthy of an article on WP  - despite nomination by Jaranda, I see no evidence of  here any more than . Much  of it is also easily verifiable - how hard is it to verify the contents of a ''Chicken McGrill'' through a link (blahblahboilerplate per BigHaz
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per #IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info - this is in effect a list. Any useful information that is relevant to MacDonalds, menus or food in general should be merged to those articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per  wikipedia is not a menu and the article ads no value to Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: for what it's worth.  You can't convince me this isn't an |indiscriminate collection of information no matter how many sources you get.  You want to know what's on the McDonald's menu, then go to McDonald's
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per #INFO.  I don't care how well-developed the list is - it's still a stupid list, and should go the way of the Burger King menu list (which, by the way, is getting shot down at | deletion review. —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:DRV)

Comment: before looking at the article, I thought the same as several people above: "''if Wikipedia starts including menus, then God help us all...''". However, looking at the article, I think it's a perfect example of the sort of international collaborative effort that is virtually only possible on Wikipedia. The article is NPOV, this is not a "fan page" as some have suggested. It's verifiable, in my opinion notable, and (at the risk of being accused of ) pretty bloody interesting. Perhaps part of the problem is the title - "Regional variations of McDonald's food" does not seem to have the "Wikipedia as a collection of menus" connotation that the current title does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Several items on the menu at McDonald's have been ''|the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other''. However, much of this article is messy, pointless |OR McCruft. There's nothing wrong with a well |sourced article on |notable McDonald's menu items, but let's not be afraid to clear out the |cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia |not a travel guide, a directory, a publisher of original thought or a menu
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:CRUFT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I won't be placing a vote in this particular AFD since it's pretty clear what the consensus is. However in order to adhere to  I have no choice but to place a keep vote for the Burger King version of this article. '''Abstain
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as Lankybugger notes, the McDonald's menu is ''itself'' the subject of frequent coverage, since this is one of the world's major brands. This is ''not'' indiscriminate (although there's little point to listing all the soda brands, if you ask me), different international menus is in fact ''justification'' for having this article, and  and  problems may be dealt with via cleanup or dispute resolution. This is a very logical subarticle to McDonald's
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)