Talk:Halal snack pack

Untitled

Some further references which will be useful in fleshing out the article.

• http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/south-west/halal-snack-pack-appreciation-society-makes-pilgrimage-to-snack-pack-mecca-king-kebab-house/news-story/a4f9e5812bf7271a006c4fb1cbd85aa9
• http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/03/17/senator-rates-halal-snack-pack-a-10.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445579/Halal-Snack-Pack-Appreciation-Society-Facebook-group-goes-viral.html

Manning (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I trust that the mass-media coverage listed above attests to the notability of this subject. I have heard (anecdotally) that similar page titles have been deleted in the past. Possibly the article was created by someone unfamiliar with the notability guidelines in WP. Regardless, if any editor has notability concerns, please raise them here before applying any AFD or CSD tags. Manning (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have notability concerns. This page mixes coverage about the Facebook page and the product itself, and I don't think this product will stay popular. I think this page can be deleted once the media coverage has gone down. --Laber□^T 12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the notability and peacock templates from the article. The topic passes WP:GNG, there is no peacock language, it's written from an entirely neutral point of view per what the sources state. Also, please be sure to note that Notability is not temporary on Wikipedia. What's wrong with having information about a Facebook group devoted entirely to the topic (that has received significant coverage in reliable sources) on the Wikipedia page about the topic? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because Facebook groups are usually not covered by Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFACEBOOK. --Laber□^T 12:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOTFACEBOOK is about using Wikipedia in a manner similar to Facebook, "Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia". This has nothing about covering a notable Facebook group. Topics that receive significant coverage in reliable sources are allowed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but writing who donated something for whom, who supports Halal food, and that users are banned for putting certain things on their food (!) is not something that should belong in a Wikipedia article. --Laber□^T 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Laberkiste: Please don't remove entire paragraphs of well-sourced content as you did here without obtaining consensus here first. Also, the rationale for your removal as "unencyclopedic content" is ambiguous at best. See also: WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources state. You come across as having a strong non-neutral point-of-view regarding the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we can't get to a solution here to improve the article, so I have to send it to AfD to get a more thorough discussion. --Laber□^T 12:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus takes a bit more time to occur than 9 minutes. Why not wait for other users to provide their opinions first? You should consider addressing how you feel the topic does not meet various notability guidelines and Wikipedia policies here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can understand when users revert the removal of large portions of text, however I cannot understand when they remove maintenance templates without discussing the issue on the talk page first. These templates are one way to build consensus, and if they do not stay in the article for as long as they are relevant, this is a problem. --Laber□^T 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thus far, you have not addressed the depth of coverage that the overall topic has received in reliable sources, which is rather substantial; your actions are entirely subjective, and are not based upon Wikipedia guidelines or polices. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the addition of maintenance templates is always subjective, that is why they should be discussed on the talk page before removal. --Laber□^T 13:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No. The addition of maintenance templates should always be objective. Many sources provide significant coverage, but you added a notability template. Did you bother to open and read the news articles and examine the overall depth of coverage the topic has received relative to WP:N?

At this point, I think it's best to discuss the matter at the AFD discussion you created, rather than having two discussions occurring simultaneously. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is more productive to continue the lengthy discussion here rather than at AfD. Per WP:AFDFORMAT the AfD discussion should consist primarily of arguments, based on policy, as to whether the article should be deleted or kept. The AfD decision will be made based on policy and the discussion should, for the benefit of the reviewing admin, be as concise as possible. If there are issues with a source, include those in your initial response and the potential issues will be reviewed. I'm not an admin but I happened on this article and foresaw the proposal for deletion. I have reviewed a lot of new articles, many of which I flagged for notability, and I don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion. I do wonder about the use of 'halal' and 'haram'. It's been changed but originally the article mentioned that some HSPs were called 'haram', which seemed odd because a halal food is by definition not haram and the other way around. Is the term 'haram' meant to be tongue-in-cheek? I can't see how adding tomato sauce or salad to an HSP would violate Muslim dietary rules. So perhaps "haram dingo" is meant to be humorous. I can see how someone would jokingly say that it's a "sin" to put ketchup on a Chicago-style hot dog. Roches (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked the source for "Adelaide AB" being derived from 'afterbirth' because the source is a "Macquarie Dictionary" that uses user-supplied entries. Even there "abortion" and "Any Bloody Thing" are suggested as possible origins of "AB". Roches (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roches. I'm a member of the group. The use of the word "haram" is very much tongue in cheek. No one is suggesting that putting tomato sauce on your snack pack is literally forbidden by God, but use of Islamic terms in a "larrikin" way is common amongst members of the Facebook group. This is partly because there's a significant Muslim population and partly because the 'movement' evolved as a reaction to the vilification of Islamic culture in Australia (citation needed). It's not uncommon to see a post begin with a "Salam" or "Salam alaikum".

The dish is definitely notable. The group alone has over 100,000 members, there are celebrities eating HSPs on television (I know for a fact the NRL footy show has featured the HSP at least twice, with cheers from the crowd), and every kebab shop has their HSP advertised on the wall. The 'movement' has been growing for more than 6 months and there's no sign of it slowing down any time soon. I have no doubt that it is because of its popularity that there have been a large number of poor quality edits of the Wikipedia page. For this reason, perhaps requiring a login to edit would be more appropriate than article deletion? -Espo 121.219.241.248 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halal snack pack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125237/https://trulyswedish.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/allting-pa-introducing-the-kebabtallrik-a-swedish-delicacy/ to https://trulyswedish.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/allting-pa-introducing-the-kebabtallrik-a-swedish-delicacy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)