Deletion of Halal snack pack

Comment: article could be tidied up in some areas ('haram dingo'...), but it passes  - coverage from a variety of good sources evident
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I've seen them in New York City. They are ''halal'' versions of bento boxen. Other than cutting out the |coatracking cruft, I don't see any major problems with the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COAT)

Comment: per |GNG and . This well-referenced article clearly meets the requirement for significant coverage in independent sources. I am familiar with this article from its submission at |DYK, and can see that it is start-class, awaiting further expansion. That is, the lead contains all the information about the halal snack pack. Other editors could choose to expand on this with additional information about the snack pack itself. Then the supplementary sections of "Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society" and "Similar dishes" would not stand out so sharply and seem to "take over" the article. Don't demolish the house while it's in the process of being built
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DONOTDEMOLISH||WP:DYK)

Comment: Clearly notable, as it is covered in multiple independent sources. My only caveat is that the other variants of the dish do not warrant their own articles and all variants should be discussed here, like "Adelaide AB" (the expansion of the acronym is rather nasty and should only be made if it is sourced). To the other editors here, please note that per  it is more productive to state arguments for keeping or deleting in your own response rather than making assertions about the validity of other editors' responses, as far as is possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDFORMAT)

Comment: The subject of the article is the HSP, a dish that has been widely popular for many years, and is a notable part of Australian culture, even without the Facebook group. The Facebook group is not notable enough for its own article, despite news coverage, because |Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but information about it is available from reliable sources and it is relevant to the article. Whether the section on the group has been given |undue weight is a content issue that can be fixed by editing. Even if an article is poorly-written |rubbish, |AfD is not cleanup and there is |no deadline for improvement. {{ping|DGG}} {{ping|Laberkiste}} if you feel that other editors are unfairly reverting your changes, AfD is not an appropriate method to resolve it, see |dispute resolution. Deleting the article and starting over would accomplish little, since those editors are free to continue editing it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:UNDUE||WP:RUBBISH||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:DEADLINE||WP:DISPUTE)

Comment: clearly passes  with significant coverage in plenty of independent reliable sources.  The political/social aspects to it (including the facebook group) add to the notability, not detract from it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The topic passes . Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The article is written entirely upon what |reliable sources state, which is what Wikipedia content is based upon. The nominator does not like what reliable sources report about the topic, but please note that |Wikipedia is not censored (see also: ). Per discussion on the article's Talk:Halal snack pack|talk page and in the nomination here, the nominator here appears to have a strong |non-neutral point-of-view regarding the overall topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:NOTCENSOR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NPOV)