Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carne Adovada


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Carne Adovada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, unsourced, violation of WP:NOHOWTO, sounds lake a hoax. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is not a hoax, but is a violation of WP:NOHOWTO, maybe if it is correctly sourced and re-written it could stand up. Eduemoni↑talk↓  23:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Certainly not a hoax, carne adovada/adobada is a common, popular, and thoroughly notable dish.  Whether it needs its own article right now, I don't know.  I agree that the content of the current article isn't what we're looking for in food articles.  There's an existing article at Adobada to which this could be redirected until someone writes an article with sourced material about the history and culinary varieties of the dish. Such material would not be hard to find; here, for example, is a link, from the first page of Google Books results, to a discussion of the dish by Jane and Michael Stern. --Arxiloxos (talk)
 * Delete and merge content to Adobo  — "Carne adobada" and "Adobado" are synonyms with Adobo. "Adobo" is the article on es.wikipedia where Adobado redirects to there.  Although the en.wikipedia article "Adobo" is not well sourced, I will look to see if there is any text (that is worth translating) or sources that I can use to improve the current article. -- JMax  (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — After a few hours rewriting the article Adobo, with information translated from the es.wikipedia article of the same title, I have learned that this article Carne Adovada has many absurd statements to which I have attached the {Dubious} template. See Talk:Carne Adovada for the complete rundown.  As a result, I would like to change my vote to Speedy Delete, citing WP:NOTHOWTO because this is written like a cookbook (Is there a WP:NOCOOKBOOK shortcut?), WP:GNG because it does not meet notability guidelines as an individual article, and this reads as original research WP:NOR.  There is nothing here worth moving to another article.  Thanks, JMax  (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts in upgrading the adobo article. I note, however, that you've added nothing about the New Mexican version of the dish, which is the one valid contribution of the current, flawed Carne Adovada article.  This is a hallmark dish in New Mexican cuisine.  In addition to the Sterns' discussion I cited above, note the 100+ other hits at Google Books .  It is related to, but is not the same, as Spanish or Filipino abobo. The current Carne Adovada article is not a good one, and may be wrong to omit the roots of the dish in other cuisines (and its reference to carne asada does seem out of place), but carne adovada is a real and distinctive dish and an important one in New Mexican cuisine.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Arxiloxos. I struck the statement I made above about not meeting WP:GNG, because further reading has led me to change my mind on that one.  (Yes, I can change my mind on occasion.)  I am thinking now that the article just needs to be rewritten from scratch, but the article that is there now needs to be scrapped.  Regarding the article Adobo: first, I was only translating information from the Spanish-language article into English, so what I added was only what is already included in the Spanish article; second, I will work on adding New Mexico to the article -- thanks for the idea.  --  JMax   (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  04:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:NOTHOWTO - as pointed by JMax, the article also has some dubious, unsourced claims. No proper content remains to be merged after taking that off - patitomr (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. It iw written more like a cookbook lead paragraph than an encyclopedia entry. What content is there can be merged into an appropriate article. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (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.