259:(Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001). Anybody have access to a copy? Things put into hamburgers (or milkshakes, or industrially produced apple pies) are a significant part of modern folklore - and should be covered as such, not as part of the MacDonalds article. If a merge were in order, it ought to be to an article on urban legends. --
255:. Rebuttals of rumours are perfectly acceptable primary evidence that the rumours existed and were notable (so notable that they needed rebuttal: I can't think of better evidence for the notability of rumours). To establish secondary-source notability, though, it would be nice to have citations of something like Jan Harold Brunvand's
164:
McDonald's was forced to respond to several of those rumours; a number were featured in reputable newspapers worldwide. I don't think it gets much better than that in terms of veracity or notability. Of course there is no original source for an urban myth; that is the whole point of requiring
144:
against those rumors. The one source of a rumor is a Snopes article which does not establish notability. Most of the rumors are unverified, which is why they're just silly internet rumors in the first place. Knowledge (XXG) should not give undue weight to such silliness.
139:
This article was previously nominated for deletion in
November 2006, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a slight majority in favor of deletion. Nine of the ten references in the article do not refer at all to the rumors themselves, but rather to
78:
73:
132:
301:, I agree with the above, rebuttals in public constitute both proof of the rumors' existence, and that it provoked corporate responses in the media shows notability.
243:
Urban legends are only really citeable in two kinds of source: works by folklorists and rebuttals to rumors. Remove any uncited rumors, and leave the cited ones. --
158:
105:
100:
109:
92:
310:
293:
268:
247:
235:
217:
190:
173:
57:
284:, for example); it is only one of at least 50 McDonald's-related articles on Knowledge (XXG), so the "undue weight" argument does not apply.
280:, a rebuttal is a perfectly good secondary source for a rumour; this article is well referenced (in fact, rather better referenced than
198:: Judgesurreal777, I would think so. And I would think that a rebuttal of a rumor would sufficiently estblish the rumor's existance.
17:
213:
96:
181:- My question is, does the McDonalds response to the rumours acknowledge the rumours notability to a sufficient extent?
154:
328:
36:
186:
88:
63:
327:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
281:
264:
201:
209:
53:
182:
165:
secondary sources. Since when was not citing a primary source considered a good reason for deletion?
289:
170:
277:
260:
231:
146:
306:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
205:
150:
49:
285:
166:
227:
302:
244:
126:
321:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
79:
Articles for deletion/McDonald's urban legends (2nd nomination)
122:
118:
114:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
331:). No further edits should be made to this page.
74:Articles for deletion/McDonald's urban legends
8:
226:- existence does not equal notability.
71:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
70:
24:
1:
257:Encyclopedia of Urban Legends
62:
311:05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
294:16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
269:14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
248:03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
236:01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
218:22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
191:21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
174:20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
159:20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
58:04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
348:
324:Please do not modify it.
89:McDonald's urban legends
64:McDonald's urban legends
32:Please do not modify it.
282:McDonald's legal cases
69:AfDs for this article:
220:
204:comment added by
339:
326:
199:
130:
112:
34:
347:
346:
342:
341:
340:
338:
337:
336:
335:
329:deletion review
322:
183:Judgesurreal777
103:
87:
84:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
345:
343:
334:
333:
316:
314:
313:
296:
271:
250:
238:
221:
193:
176:
137:
136:
83:
82:
81:
76:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
344:
332:
330:
325:
319:
318:
317:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:Paularblaster
275:
272:
270:
266:
262:
261:Paularblaster
258:
254:
251:
249:
246:
242:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
197:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
175:
172:
168:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
65:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
323:
320:
315:
298:
273:
256:
252:
240:
223:
195:
178:
141:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
206:Quasirandom
200:—Preceding
50:Bongwarrior
286:Gandalf61
276:- as per
167:Johnleemk
142:rebuttals
228:Otto4711
214:contribs
202:unsigned
133:View log
303:ThuranX
245:Phirazo
196:Comment
179:Comment
106:protect
101:history
224:Delete
147:Shalom
110:delete
155:Peace
151:Hello
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
307:talk
299:Keep
290:talk
274:Keep
265:talk
253:keep
241:Keep
232:talk
210:talk
187:talk
171:Talk
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
54:talk
48:. --
46:keep
131:– (
309:)
292:)
267:)
234:)
216:)
212:•
189:)
169:|
157:)
153:•
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
56:)
305:(
288:(
263:(
230:(
208:(
185:(
149:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.