Talk:South Australian food and drink

Merge Tag
I've added the merge tag to alert other editors to the need to debate the usefulness or otherwise of this article. Pedro | Chat  12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) WP:Merge says to be bold but in view of the history here lets get a consensus one way or the other. Pedro | Chat  12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be retained

I am the author of this article. I am disappointed to see that within 24 hours of its creation, it has been deleted and redirected twice. In both cases, the persons responsible for the deletion failed to consult with me, or anyone else.

This article relates to an important South Australian industry, and it is disappointing to see persons who do not appear to have any knowledge of the industry act in a manner which would result in the deletion of information regarding this important subject.

I am happy to see positive contributions, amendments and additions to the article. However, it disappoints me that some persons consider that it is okay to delete articles at the expense of knowledge.Fitzpatrickjm 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you are new to Wikipedia, and this is a good thing. Anyone is welcome here if they are civil and follow the guidelines. I would recommend you read WP:OWN - just because you created the article you don't own it. There is no question that food / drink of South Australia is important. The problem comes that there is already a substantial article on Australian Cuisine. This article was very POV and still looks like an advert at the bottom. Let's take an example - there is an article on English Cuisine but not one on cusine of Hampshire. Would it not be better (and get the facts seen by more people) to have a section within the main article detaliling the content here? Pedro | Chat  12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you consider the content of the respective articles- which is quite different. One article is describing cuisine; the other is providing information regarding the industry of a State. Food and beverage produc

tion is a major South Australian industry- I suggest that if you took a poll of South Australians, they would agree with that assertion. Let's see if there are any other contributions to this debate.Fitzpatrickjm 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree more input is needed. However if this is to do with the industry of South Australia why not merge it into South_Australia instead ? The fundamental issue here is justifying why a whole seperate article is needed, no that the information is without value. Pedro | Chat  13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, if that is the case then surely the article should be called "South Australia food and drink industry" ??? Pedro | Chat  13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that there is no place for this article, but in its current form it is very POV. It's great that the creator of the article is proud of his country and State, but with other articles too this has led to POV and ownership issues. If the article can be brought up to scratch, I would have thought that it could be a sub-article linked  from the main  South_Australia article. Having said that it's a bit of a mishmash at present, with genuinely major industries, like wine, listed with the dreaded pie floater. Is it true that local delicacies are such because no one elsewhere will eat them? jimfbleak 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blimey - I wish I hadn't followed the pie floater link!! In all seriousness I suppose it could be a "see also" from the economy link, but if the original author is correct in his assertation of the importance of food and drink to industry then it may as well just be that section in South Australia. Some citation wouldn't go amiss either. I guess we await more input but i really can't see enough here to justify a full article at present. Pedro | Chat  15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd go along with everything in the comment above, jimfbleak 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about some comments from the Southern Hemisphere?Fitzpatrickjm 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Comments from the Southern Hemisphere) The article as it stands is mostly about industry, so might be renamed, but it's a mixture of primary (farming), secondary (manufacturing), tertiary (restaurants and service), container recycling, education and cuisine, without telling a clear story. The See also list is mostly links that are already in the text, so is not needed. The article uses terms that would (e.g broadacre) not be familiar to a global audience, and assumes quite a bit of background knowledge about the state. It does not distinguish between major commercial activities and boutique small producers, or the relationships between them. --Scott Davis Talk 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge suggestion. The article needs editing to give it a focus, and desperately needs sources to back up the comments, but there is some value when included as part of the Aussie Cuisine article. As there is a broad consensus, with only an objectioon from the article creator, I have done the merge.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Undone Merge
This is a very low traffic talk page. There seems to be consensus for the merge out of the limited activity here. User:Fitzpatrickjm has undone it, and I have to say you are showing serious ownership issues. I'm not going to start reverting, but can we at least try and get this clearcut. Per the above I support the merge and redirect. Pedro | Chat  09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge has consent. The only objection is from the creator of the article. I have left an explanation of the situation on the creator's talk page giving advice to seek assistance and broader consensus for a revert, and have restored the redirect.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what I have read here, the merge makes sense to me. The lone objector has serious ownership issues with several articles.  If nobody else objects, the merge should be implemented. --  But | seriously | folks   22:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see my comment of 29 May 2007 as supporting a merge, so the claim that Fitzpatrickjm is the only objector might be technically true, but I at least expressed reservations about a merge. --Scott Davis Talk 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of this article. I place on the record the following:

1. This article was proposed for deletion, then merger in May this year.

2. Since then, it has been expanded considerably, and contributions hce been made by several editors.

3. The article deals with several aspects of the food industry in South Australia, including manufacturing, education, primary production and hospitality.

I do not consider these aspects come under the heading of "cuisine".

4. Thew article has been assessed and labelled "Start" class.

5. The decision to act on merging the article has been made very quickly.

I request that the article be assessed independently, and the views of contriuting editors canvassed.

Fitzpatrickjm 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This article scope was wider than "cuisine", covering industry and economics as well. The merged "Cuisine of Australia" is wildly out of kilter with this level of detail about only one state, and would be way too long if it had this detail from every state, as well as having the focus moved away from the title. --Scott Davis Talk 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

merge into a new article
I would suggest making a new page called "food and drink industry of Australia" to cover the broader aspect of this article. The facts are that this article deals with the specific companies that make food in SA (South Australia),not the cuisine of SA. This article sould not be retained but instead merged into the above mentioned possible artice. This is just an idea so it would be good to hear some feedback. 122.104.76.104 (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)