Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/À la carte


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

À la carte

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is just a dictionary definition. It seems to clearly fall under things Wikipedia is Not. According to the talk page it has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Seems like a clear candidate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 26 March 2009
 * Speedy keep - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition.  Jd 027  (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point. "The phrase and its usage" is the definition of a definition. What distinction are you attempting to make here? Locke9k (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See the difference here.  Jd 027  (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be about the subject term, not just use the subject term). Already in Wiktionary, just link to wiktionary from disambig page instead. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A mere mention isn't enough, but the article doesn't have to be about the subject either. There is a middle road. The article can be about something else and still make verifiable statements about the subject that go beyond trivial mentions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. Wily D 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as notable as Blue-plate special and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book A Neutral Corner. Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). TNplinko (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD evaluates whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title. It doesn't evaluate the current content. I agree the current content's a dicdef, but I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article called a la carte. — S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question what encyclopedic substance might such an article ever contain? Gigs (talk)
 * I should imagine people from the relevant WikiProject would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just delsorted it too. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - why is this even nominated?! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An obvious keep- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of restaurants that a merge to the parent article might be an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--Caspian blue 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. notable cuisine-related subject. Badagnani (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see anywhere this article can reasonably go beyond the definition of the term. I see a number of people arguing that the article has greater potential, but these arguments have not taken the form of additional sources or content in the article that would not be at home in wiktionary. If the article survives the AfD in its current form, and is not substantially expanded, it's bound to be re-nominated. --Shunpiker (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google returns 7,910,000 for it, so it is a common phrase. I never heard of it before, but a lot of people apparently use it.  D r e a m Focus  04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a difference between dictionary definitions and stub articles. This one I would classify as a stub article. The phrase is used a lot and needs to be documented. Tavix (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwiki to French Wikitonary. See User:Tavix, where there is a diffrence upon dicitonary vs stub. Junk Police (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Oodles of possibilities to make this much more than a dictdef. -- Banj e b oi   12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd suggest that this could be merged with menu and redirected without loss of information; some time ago I did some cleanup on that page. But this is not the place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.