Talk:Chicago-style hot dog

RFD
SOP: a hot dog in the style of Chicago. People will not look this up in a dictionary, and it's not idiomatic. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, the word 'Chicago' tells you nothing about the hot dog. I'd prefer an rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it would pass one. So you'd also want, I gather? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, the hot dog isn't SOP, and the politics is. The hot dog is a much more commonly used term outside of Chicago.  Your line of thinking amounts to a slippery slope fallacy  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just delete. This seems to be an excellent example of encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: This, and the "television show" RfD below, are frankly a waste of community time. This article is clearly not SOP, as nothing to do with "Chicago" is in the actual definition.  Even the nominator acknowledges that it would pass a verifibility test.  I'm not seeing how it's encyclopedic...it's a single sentence telling what's in the hot dog.  Quite similar to dozens of other food-related articles in this project.  So, if it's not RfVable, not SOP, and not encyclopedic, why are we here again?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker)
 * To his defense, we have Vienna sausage, "a sausage in the style of Vienna" (yes, this is the definition!) -- Liliana • 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...So, yeah, this one is better in that it's definition isn't just that (and FYI, a Chicago-style hot dog is made with Vienna sausage) Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Viennese waltz though? Or Glasgow kiss? Keep, cannot think of a reason to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Depending on how this goes, we might need an entry for, Chicago-style politics, (also polka, pizza, and blues). DCDuring TALK 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, those are SOPpier than Chicago-style dog, and even if they weren't, that's still a slippery slope argument. CSHD is akin to French fries, baked Alaska or any other food that happens to have a place name in their titles, but can be defined without the place names, just simply by what's in it  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that virtually no term of the form "Place'-style' NP" is not includable under what has been advanced as an argument so far. There is normally nothing obvious from the place and still less the placename that conveys how "Place'-style' applies to NP. But this hardly seems like information that has anything to do with a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. For one thing, is there any translation of the headword that is not a translation of Chicago-style + hot dog? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems as though you're grasping at straws here. The test you're suggesting (the one with the headword) has little to do with the definition of SoP.  The test for SoP is "can Chicago-style hot dog be defined in a way that isn't something on the lines of a hot dog from Chicago?", to which it's clear both here and in the definition itself that it can.  Not all hot dogs sold in Chicago are Chicago-style hot dogs (you can get a chili dog or a hot dog with just mustard there, for example) nor are Chicago-style hot dogs only served in Chicago (I do not live anywhere near Chicago, but I made a CSHD at a barbecue once, and it appeared on the menu of my hometown hot dog place).  Therefore, to call a CSHD "a hot dog from Chicago" is both vague and inaccurate, meaning it isn't SoP, it's just another food that happens to have a name of a place in it instead of another adjective.  And to claim the definition is encyclopedic is also inaccurate, as it fits the general form of a food definition "a dish made with this, that and the other thing"  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what DCD means (and why I nominated this for deletion) is that it's incorrect to say "that Chicago-style hot dog can be "defined in a way that isn't something on the lines of a hot dog from Chicago" (as you very aptly put it), and that if our definition says otherwise then it says too much. Just like the definition for telephone should include that it's used for communication at a distance and that it allows for dialing to reach an intended party, but should not include details of its component parts, likewise the definition for Chicago-style hot dog should include that it's a hot dog in the style of Chicago, but should not include details of its ingredients — but that would make it SOP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition doesn't say too much...it says no more than any other food-related article, most of which mention ingredients. Does that mean they have to go as well?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Chicago-style doesn't tell me what this hot dog is. I reserve statement on Chicago-style politics, but in general, I think city-style noun phrases have a good chance of not being SOP.--Prosfilaes 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand that it's a hot dog in the Chicago style, but that does not help when you want to know the sense. But this is not a sufficient reason. The actual reason for inclusion is that it's a set phrase, one of the two names, together with Chicago dog, as I understand from Wikipedia. This phrase belongs to the vocabulary in English. Lmaltier 21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Purple. &mdash;Internoob 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Chicago-style with several defs for the sense of CS-hot dog, CS-pizza, etc.Lucifer 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But a Chicago-style hot dog is completely different than a Chicago-style pizza. They have completely different defining characteristics aside of originating in the City of Big Shoulders  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no generic "Chicago-style" from which the nature of the hot dog could be discerned by that alone. bd2412 T 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure there is #1 tons of toppings, #1 with a giant deep dish and tons of sauce , #1 heavy handed, corrupt , #1 exaggerated, ostentatious
 * And, except for the last one, those definitions only apply to one thing Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 14:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, each sense of Chicago-style just like any multi sense word only applies to one thing, but Chicago-style applies to several things.Lucifer 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be a good reason, but another reason for keeping this is that "Chicago-style hot dogs" do not necessarily have anything to do with the kind of hot dogs one is served in many restaurants in Chicago, just as many pizza restaurants in the city have their own styles of pizza which are not "Chicago-style pizzas" even though they are Chicago pizzas. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat related discussion
Compare [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English&oldid=58021597#New_York this RFD discussion], which will be archived soon at Talk:New York. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)