Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diablo sandwich

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 merge to Smokey and the Bandit. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo sandwich

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

This does not strike me as a notable topic; one notices the lack of sourcing, even the lack of a basic description, which boils down to "something that was on a menu in a movie". I don't think this passes the GNG, and I invite the participants from the talk page discussion from last year to participate: Ibadibam, OmikronWeapon, Froglich. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smokey and the Bandit – I have seen no evidence that this sandwich exists outside the one-minute passage in which it appears in Smokey and the Bandit. All other mentions I have found are in reference to the movie. But the fact that it was discussed in cable TV show is worth mentioning in a "cultural legacy" section, along with the film's effect on Trans Am sales and other cultural impacts. Ibadibam (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While inadequately sourced (one RS at present), this low-importance article concerning an inoffensive subject is harmless in its present state with tags at the top awaiting future improvement. I don't think merging into "Smokey" is appropriate as that'd necessarily entail a larger fraction of space in that article than it rates in the film (where it exists as a prop for one of Jackie Gleason's more quotable lines). The movie is almost forty years old, but culinary interest in what a "diablo sandwich" really is (or was) continues to this day. As the Roadfood source makes clear, a diablo sandwich was an actually existent regional entree rather than script fiction. --Froglich (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:HARMLESS. The sources we have don't demonstrate notability so much as they just postulate ingredients based on what was depicted in the film. The RoadFood post makes no conclusion as to whether or not the diablo sandwich exists outside of the film. To this day, we have not one menu, not one advertisement, not one source of any kind that mentions this sandwich as anything other than something in this movie, nor do we have anything that actually documents enduring culinary interest – just a few forum posts and a movie food trivia show. If it's not significant enough to be mentioned in the film article, how could it be significant enough to have its own article? Ibadibam (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smokey and the Bandit, which presently does not mention the topic. The topic has received minor coverage, but not nearly enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect as it clearly fails GNG on its own. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smokey and the Bandit. I admit that I was waiting to see what Northamerica1000 said, but I was already strongly leaning toward a merge. I see a few trivial mentions scattered about, such as this, but there isn't enough to establish notability here. Redirect is alright, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smokey and the Bandit or Delete. The sources, most of which are blogs or other, non reliable sources, all reference the movie. I can't find independent, reliable sources that predate the movie. Perhaps as part of an otherwise notable movie, this is worth inclusion. If not for the movie, the sandwich is more like something made up. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:15, 26 February 2016 (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.