Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AB (food)


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AB (food)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Afd not complete, I am simply attempting to list it. I am neutral, though the original nominator may wish to weigh in. Charlie 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be deleted because it is a Neologism. The Wikipedia guideline regarding neologisms says, "new terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." So this page should be deleted unless a reliable source is cited. Username nought 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this here/why has the template been re-added to the page? It has already been discussed AND has previously been through this process, and was NOT deleted. Hence, it is obvious that it should not be here again. Further, I would move that it should not be deleted, as it is in the process of becoming an article. If the nominator, Username nought, would've read the talk page for AB, they would've noticed that reliable sources and references are being sought for the article in common/popular media. As such, this article is the only source of information on the AB on the internet. ABVS1936 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has not been brought to AFD before. If this article is the sole source of information on something that has never been documented before, then it is original research that does not belong here. Uncle G 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ABVS, you actually gave a pretty good reason why the article should be deleted: "...reliable sources and references are being sought for the article in common/popular media." If you don't have the reliable sources for this, and you need to find where the term is in common use, it's still a neologism, and as such subject to deletion. Wildthing61476 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The complete opposite of what I was going for actually, I merely wanted to point out that if username nought had paid attention to the talk page for the article, they would've noticed that the authors are looking for reliable references in other media. Also, we do not need to 'find where the term is in common use', as it is in very common use in Adelaide, South Australia, and has been for at least the last 20 years. The fact that there is little or no usage in the (local) media is a slight hiccup, but nonetheless I am/we are still searching. So in short, I ask for some clemency in this matter, and would suggest a keep, at least until we collect some reliable info for the article that ISN'T original research. Cheers ABVS1936 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have five days before this discussion is closed. If that's not enough, you can request that the closing admin put the information in your user space, and get sources later.  If the only reason the article is deleted is a lack of sources, then adding sources will likely convince people it should be kept.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If and when reliable sources become available, the article can be recreated. There has been a  template in the article since September last year, and  has been added and removed (despite the total lack of references) since then.  That's more than enough time to fix the issues. JulesH 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as made up in college one day. NN local fad of minimal popularity even at that. DGG 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the AB has been a 'local fad' for nigh on 30 years - I have heard stories (that would constitute original research unfortunately) of people travelling to Adelaide from as far away as the Claire and Barossa Vallies in the late 70's/early 80's primarily for the purpose of getting an AB - from the Red and White no less, when it was originally the North Adelaide Cafe & Burger Bar (or something to that effect). I can see the validity of deleting this article, though I cannot see the value in doing it. So wikipedia is the only source of information on the internet, and word of mouth is not a reliable source. ABVS1936 05:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * nor are blogs. Unfortunately (POV declaration - I love the AB) it looks like a delete unless someone tracks down this Advertiser article that's been mentioned.--Yeti Hunter 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another case of people not bothering to research before rushing to AFD. "TO some it may look revolting, it has a cocktail of ingredients and is a huge hit with students.The AB meal - hot chips, yiros meat and, depending on your taste, a mixture of sauces including BBQ, chilli, tomato and garlic - has sparked a turf war between two North Adelaide shops." — Hough, Andrew. Cafes' messy meal turns into a title fight, The Advertiser (Adelaide), 14-07-2005. Michael talk 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a good collection of articles in the newspaper database about this local delicacy, so outsiders should not comment on something they are completely ignorant of (and are choosing not to know about). Michael talk 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew I had read that article - do you by any chance have a copy? Or are you willing to help us rewrite the AB article? Also, any other info from reliable sources re: the AB would be greatly appreciated. This delicacy is an Adelaide icon, much loved and an important part of now 2 generations of Adelaidians. Just like Balfours' Frogs and the Pie Floater. Perhaps an article including all South Australian Cullinary/or Food and Drink icons? For consideration... ABVS1936 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- cj | talk 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete People have been looking for requesting sources since 3 March 2006. I don't think the next five days will help. Without sources it is original research. ABVS, there are plenty of sources to say apples are red...pink...green.... and probably other colours, they are well researched commercial crops.Garrie 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to cite those articles? Or at least one of them? Just to prove a point, we ALL know that apples are red, and green and every color in between, but where is it documented? Other than perhaps The Fruit Lovers' Guide to Apples, I'm assuming it could be and is quite difficult to prove something that is and has been common knowledge since... forever, and that we have all known since we could open our eyes. And thus it is with the AB: those of us from Adelaide know the AB is notable, and is a South Australian icon, but where is that documented? Somewhere I'm sure, it's just really hard to find.
 * As an aside, a quick(and I mean within the first 3 pages of results) search on Google for colour apple/color apple and red apple reveals no references to the actual color of the fruit. Interesting? ABVS1936 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I got one! http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20070601200456AAFOv6z - the second part of the Best Answer. Just shows that perseverence goes a long way, even if it is searching to prove one's self wrong. Perhaps we should ALL try to support the point of view that we oppose, and see how much we can actually find out, and improve this fantastic resource that is wikipedia. ABVS1936 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (sorry for being hugely off topic, but I had to either support or reject my own hypothesis!)


 * Comment, this has moved to your talk page. It looked like gloating here.Garrie 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I cant find a reliable source for it. John Vandenberg 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do so now, but if this is deleted, I'll be rewriting the article, fully referenced. So it would seem to be a waste of time on your part. Michael talk 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But Micahel, how can anything that leads to the creation of a fully referenced article be a waste of any of our time?Garrie 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per John Vandenberg :: maelgwn :: talk 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if sources were found, it should probably be a paragraph on a page such as "Culture of Adelaide". The lack of reliable sources should be a guide. Orderinchaos 22:02, 6 June 2007 (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.