Talk:Fried meatballs

from VfD:

This is a recipe that was listed for deletion in December, and then forgotten (I think the original listing got sent to a subpage and forgotten). There is no context provided in the recipe providing why it is encyclopedic, and the recipe has been transwikied to Wikibooks (b:Cookbook:Fried Meatballs), and it's page history preserved in the Wikibooks module's talk page. Gentgeen 06:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) This is just a bad idea to plain delete pages of this type. If people come to Wikipedia, and search for meatball, they must find the information. Even if you (wrongly imho) decided to move the information to wikibooks, then DELETE the article, then it may be that the information is saved, but it is unusable, because the link to the recipee disapeared. You might have preserved the information, but an information which can't be found is just useless.
 * Delete, not encyclopedic. Could have been speedy deleted, I think.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 07:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I propose a the following update to case 7 of the Candidates for speedy deletion so that this can be an unambiguous speedy: " Foreign language a A rticles that already exist on another Wikimedia project which have as a result of having been copied and pasted into Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system." When case 7 was written, I don't think Wikibooks, et al existed.  Further comments should probably go to Candidates for speedy deletion.  Rossami 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This article was in plain english, so I just do not see how the article about foreign language articles apply here. SweetLittleFluffyThing
 * Delete. Transwiki'd.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and list on cleanup. anthony (see warning) 20:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 21:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a question of principle :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 13:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. We're not a bloody cookbook. Wholeheartedly disagree with Anthere/SweetFluffyThing --Improv 16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You also support deleting the redirect ??? What harm does a redirect cause ? You do not even see it, it is not even counted as an article ? What is the justification of such hainous comment ? I replace the article by a redirect and this is not even acceptable ? What do you call a consensual decision then ? I think I made a huge move in your direction. You could at least acknowledge that. SweetLittleFluffyThing (wondering if she should just not restore the article as before if even a redirect is not acceptable. I am shocked you even support breaking links to other projects, deeply shocked).
 * Keep. This is a reasonable topic. Intrigue 18:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments

Now, if you succeed to prove me that wikibooks is as well known as Wikipedia, and that the reader who do not find the information on wikipedia will have the idea to go and look in wikibooks to find the missing information, then I will not complain of deletionist behavior. But ihmo, you will not succeed to do so, hence link to information must be preserved.

To do so, either keep the article, or at least save the information in another (probably more generalist) article. This is what I did in including the fried meatball information (and link to recipee) in the meatball article. Again, information hidden and impossible to find is just worthless. Do not hide information. Classifying does not make sense if it results in information being hidden. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting point of view. However, it flies in the face of the consensus of the discussions and of the process for Transwiki.  May I recommend that you copy your concerns there and/or at the Village Pump?  Your issues seem to transcend a single VfD vote.  Rossami

I put them there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump#transwiki

People just do not care at all. They know that if they go on just doing the same thing than before without making any comment on new proposals, they can pretend no one question the policy they support.

There was never a clear consensus with regards to deleting recipees, each time I mentionned the topic, some people supported the same view than I, but the recipees were deleted nevertheless. It is the domain of who is the bolder.

I would like to know your opinion. Do you still support deleting links and making access to information disappear ?

SweetLittleFluffyThing

Several months ago, there was a discussion page for deletion of recipee. I remember quite well that many people gave their opinion on it, and there opinion was that indeed recipees could belong to the encyclopedia. The list of people agreeing to this was highly relevant. I can not find it back. Could someone help me here ?

I hope that it was not deleted, otherwise I would undelete this page, as it was the place were opinion of non deletionnists was reported.

SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a recipe and does not even include a recipe. It is a not-very-good article about a category of food that is common in many cultures and many regional and ethnic American cuisines. The topic is as legitimate as hamburger or sausage or kielbasa or haggis or menudo or scrapple, the inclusion of all of which I strongly support. As far as I know, none of those have been questioned. This is a less important topic, and not nearly as good an article, but there's nothing at all unencyclopedic about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found the links !
List of recipes

Talk:List of recipes/Delete


 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010882.html (optim)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010885.html (Fred)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010881.html (Mark)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html (David)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010903.html (Geoff)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010907.html (Ec)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010904.html (Ec)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010889.html (Mark)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010891.html (Theresa)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010895.html (JIMBO)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010899.html (Erik)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010902.html (dpb)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010913.html (Elian)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010916.html (Ec)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010936.html (Ec)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010929.html (Cimon)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010931.html (Mav)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010938.html (Ec)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010932.html (Mav)

Most agree they could be moved (see Jimbo, Elian and Ec opinion though), but most also consider content should be moved (not deleted) and links should be preserved.


 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010944.html (Theresa)
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010945.html (Fred)


 * Wikipedia is not the mailing list. February is not October. In the last few months, no "article" that is just a recipe has survived VfD, but many have become actual articles and been kept. As I've said before, an article that is just a recipe doesn't give encyclopedic information about a dish, like it's history, useage, significance, how widespread it is, etc. It would be like if our article on OpenOffice.org was just the source code of the application printed out as text.  It's just a set of instructions with no context, and I think that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.


 * Come on Gentgeen, you know very well that this is also a lot in Talk:List of recipes/Delete as well. Also, if consensus made 6 months before are not valid any more just from the decision of those working on the topic 6 months later, then I fear that most rules followed in Wikipedia should just disappear :-)
 * We also already had this discussion you and I, and you know well that we agreed that just recipee could be moved, while those articles with a bit of encyclopedic content, cultural background, fame etc... could stay here, and this is exactly why you agree that meatball should stay I think. So, you and I have no disagreement.
 * Again, these discussions show that there is no evidence it is commonly agreed that everything should just disappear as some editors seem to consider here.


 * I withdraw the deletion request, as I'm happy with the redirect that Anthere created, and agree that the meatball article could be significantly expanded. Gentgeen 03:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am glad of that; As I said, if significant articles such as meatball are kept, if link to recipees are preserved or if previous recipees are transformed in redirect to a larger article where links are preserved, I am okay. If all is deleted, I will go on disagreeing. I think a solution such as the one on oyster is okay.
 * However, I would like that preservation of links becomes a policy, because I can not just come and fix each time what people here are blindly deleting without taking into account the rest of the community opinion. And it is bugging me that it needs to discuss this over and over and over again, with regular attemps of intimidation which are inappropriate. SweetLittleFluffyThing 07:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well known food of cultural significance. 80.255 17:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recipes proposal

end moved discussion

So, where's the recipe?
The main article promises a recipe in Wikibooks here, but that page is blank. Has the agreement on recipes already broken down? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

... even the page on meatball is not to be found. Odd... I go explore.SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I really could not find it....:-( SweetLittleFluffyThing


 * It used to be here before people got so concerned with getting rid of the info. Dori | Talk 00:34, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have a real reason for asking. My mother used to make some kind of deep-fried meatball. The main thing I remember is that it had parsley or some kind of green leafy thing in it (no, not marijuana!) and I suddenly began to wonder which kind of fried meatball it was, Italian or Albanian or something else. Without a recipe in the article or linked to it, I actually can't tell. No, I can't tell from her ethnicity either; she got the recipe from a magazine or cookbook and was neither Italian nor Albanian. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikibooks uses a different naming convention. The recipe can be found at b:Cookbook:Fried Meatballs. Gentgeen 02:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * oh, if you'd have bothered to read the discussion above, that is the first link in this page. Go raise strawmen somewhere else. Gentgeen 02:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Carelessness and jumping to conclusions, not raising a strawman. I wasn't the one who put in the links. I assumed that at some point they worked. Current Meatball article has working links and it appears that my mother may have been using an Albanian recipe. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why I reverted the page back the redirection
After careful thinking, I decided to reject the unilateral decision to keep this page, and put again a redirect.

I have 2 reasons for this
 * 1) most voters did vote before the redirection proposal and have not given their opinion after changes were made and merging in meatball done
 * 2) the current state of the future policy seem to suggest that editors would support redirection

Consequently, I asked that this article is maintained as is till the time the policy is set, after enough time is given to discussion (so, probably at least 2 weeks minimum). SweetLittleFluffyThing