Deletion of Burger King menu items

Comment: Special orders do upset us 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Jaranda. Per , this list of uncyclopedic terms is not really needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per McDonald's menu items. While "I like it" is not valid per , "indiscriminate"  is not valid either. It doesn't match any of the reasons given under . "Delete unless we want to add menus for all restaurants around the world" isn't valid anymore than adding one biography means we have to add everyone on Earth. While a list of menu items isn't of value, a list with commentary and with calories would be valuable, since they aren't provided by Burger King in an easy to use format. The list also makes it easy to compare Burger King vs. McDonalds menu items. Its more than a menu when it contains commentary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: this is a logical subarticle of Burger King, which as a major international brand (even if not at the level of McDonald's) receives media interest in its menu changes. The information is not indiscriminate (though much of the other brands section could be trimmed) and / issues may be dealt with through cleanup or dispute resolution
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: WP:NOT -- also, please note that just because something is ''interesting'' or ''useful'' does not warrant inclusion (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, hold the onion...hold the burger. See 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Looking at the article, it looks like just about every non-generic (i.e. trademarked) item sold by Burger King has an article anyway, and the ones I looked at listed versions and regional variations for those products. This article provides an OK structural context and is NPOV, hence the weak keep. Also as usual, I disagree with the "slippery slope" arguments that "every restaurant in the world will have to have their menu on Wikipedia" if this is kept. Those pointing to  to "invalidate" the arguments of others are, I hope, aware that  is also a shortcut to that page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: on the grounds that it appears there is a consensus to keep the McDonald's menu article, and therefore in order to maintain  we can't discriminate. And yes, I do know that this could result in articles being created for Dairy Queen, Wendy's, Harvey's, White Castle, etc etc but if a precedent is going to be set by keeping the McDonald's article, I can't in good conscience vote to delete an article about a competing company. (For the record I'm abstaining from voting on the McDonald's article because at this point a delete/keep vote will make little difference
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)