Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Tacos


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don Tacos
Another Japanese snack food not notable enough to have its own article in the Japanese Wikipedia.
 * Delete or merge. Dforest 06:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did they fail an AFD? Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If not in Japanese wikipedia, cant be that notable.  Ban e  s  10:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How much do you know about the Japanese wikipedia? Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That they have 146,849 articles, and yet somehow managed to overlook this particular snack food. I wonder why? --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They also didn't have an article for Kyabetsu Taro until yesterday. After I translated it into Japanese it was put on a list of "new food-related articles". Maybe I'll do "Don Tacos" next. Another one today, Japanese map symbols, was not on Japanese wikipedia either, it was a red link on one of their pages, and I translated that into Japanese (it's since been heavily added to by another editor). If you'll look on my user page under "Japanese Wikipedia" you'll find two more examples of articles about Japanese language which didn't exist there until I translated them. As a matter of fact, several of the articles on Japanese language here in the English wikipedia are a lot more comprehensive than theirs. So, it seems, strange but true, Japanese Wikipedia is not yet the fount of all human knowledge. But anyway, thankyou for your comments. --DannyWilde 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why look, THAT article is up for deletion also. And the fact that you added it to the Japanese Wikipedia means nothing -- hell, it means less than nothing; having to gin up a rationale doesn't exactly help your case. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but which article are you referring to? I have just checked the Japanese version of kyabetsu taro, the Japanese map symbols article, and the English map symbols article, and none of them have notices saying they are being put up for deletion. Is there something I'm not aware of? --DannyWilde 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Without putting words in DannyWilde's mouth, I think the point he was making is that using the presence of an article in the Japanese Wikipedia as a litmus test for cultural validity in Japan is not foolproof. Otherwise, we have to say that Pikachu is not culturally significant in Japan, since it doesn't have a page of its own in Japanese (but it does in several other languages -- are you planning an AFD for those too?).  In Japanese, it is relegated to a catalog list of other pokemon characters ja:ポケモン一覧 from a redirect.  I'm not against merging the snack foods in a similar way (or, the plethora of pokeon characters that populate the en wikipedia), but I am against deleting an article with >30k google hits.  - Neier 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. For example, "edomoji", a type of Japanese lettering used in sumo, kabuki, and other Japanese arts like rakugo, was not in the Japanese wikipedia until I translated it. There were just some red links. Edomoji are undoubtedly culturally significant by any standards, and they just weren't there at all. Absolutely nothing existed in the Japanese wikipedia until I made that article. Whether it's in the Japanese wikipedia or not means nothing, really, since there is no guarantee that the Japanese wikipedia is comprehensive. I suppose Dforest would suggest deleting the edomoji article from the English wikipedia too, if he can't find enough links about edomoji in English on Google. --DannyWilde 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 31,600 Google hits in Japanese makes it a notable snack. Fg2 10:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure it's a stub, but it has potential for expansion. Many snack foods have an article in Wikipedia. CES 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But do some deserve to be here? --JAranda &#124; yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete snackcruft. I cannot imagine how this could be expanded except by adding the most trivial of details. They're just Japanese tortilla chips, basically. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until I see an afd for Pringles and Doritos - Neier 13:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep a step towards our goal of universal access to the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think human knowledge wants to know about this nn snack food --JAranda &#124; yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I not human? Do I not suffer when knowledge is taken away from me? Kappa 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Im not saying that your not a human I dont know where u got that from . But this is not knowledge basically. Do you want to know what kind of flavors this chip has if it has a nice history to it i will keep but this practicly has no useful learning info. --JAranda &#124; yeah 17:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to know what people in Japan eat, yes including what flavors their tacos have. Why shouldn't I be able to find that out?Kappa 17:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The flavors are not particularly notable - cheese, and mexican chile (aka salsa). It's a Doritos clone. It doesn't need its own article. Dforest 04:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't be able to find out what Japanese people eat? Kappa 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think reading a substub about an off-brand knock-off snack will teach you a thing about Japan, you have a very peculiar definition of knowledge. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You, and others, might find out better if stubs like this one were moved to an article about Japanese snack food. Which is better: hundreds of sub-paragraph stubs or a comprehensive article? Dforest 05:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that an article on Japanese snack foods would be a good idea (if it doesn't exist somewhere already), but how can you advocate either deleting stubs that have information of interest or merging the information with an article that doesn't exist? How can you merge one thing with nothing?  Sounds the same as deleting it to me.  If you're so concerned about the creation of an article on Japanese snack foods, why don't you create one yourself?  That would be more productive than holding these votes where there is an obvious interest in the articles, as the vote count suggests. CES 11:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea in listing it here is to judge its interest. Personally, I can't imagine why this Doritos clone is more noteworthy than all the other thousands of Doritos clones out there. Dforest 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Neier - helps to address regional bias CLW 15:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn snack food --JAranda &#124; yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep and please try to reverse our systemic bias here 32 thousand hits is a lot so why is this non notable that does not make sense Yuckfoo 17:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I count 225 unique hits. Where did this "32,000" number come from? --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you google for English or Japanese? I got 30,500 just now.  Neier 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No comment on Dforest's motives will be made. --DannyWilde 22:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My motive is to move these stubs to a more useful and comprehensive article on Japanese snack food. There are literally thousands of Japanese snacks that could be mentioned here, and in my opinion they do not all deserve their own articles. Dforest 01:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is it here in AFD? Kappa 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because as of yet, there is no suitable place to merge them. Dforest 01:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Than create a place to merge it to and don't try to delete it. Deleted articles can't be merged. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Right now there is very little to merge. Perhaps you could suggest a place?   There are certainly Japanese snack foods worth having their own articles, but I can't imagine this being more than a stub, so I listed it here.   Can you suggest a better place to discuss merging Japanese snack stubs?  Dforest 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable Japanese snack. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 32 thousand hits. Stubby, but certainly notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 225 unique hits, according to Google. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into a larger article on Japanese snack foods. Logophile 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge We definitely need an article on Japanese snack foods, but do we really need a bunch of individual stub articles?  I don't think so.  A redirect to a larger and more comprehensive article on Japanese snack foods would serve just as well until someone is both able and willing to write an full article on this particular snack food and its culrutal signifcance in Japan.  Caerwine 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I live in Tokyo, and, to be blunt, I find this whole discussion bordering on the insane -- There is no cultural significance to this particular snack food, any more so than Belgian or Dutch Doritos knock-offs (and yes, they exist and I've seen those). Pocky Sticks, yes; Calpis, yes; Taco rice, yes; Don Tacos, no. (forgot to sign: --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC))
 * I have no idea whether Don Tacos are culturally significant. If you are going to delete or merge articles based on their "lack of cultural significance", good luck, you only have about 700,000 articles on Wikipedia to delete until you are finished. Let's hope no one makes anymore articles about snacks in the meantime, otherwise you certainly will have your hands full. --DannyWilde 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Buh? That was the biggest load of non-sequitor I've seen all month. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right; that's not even wrong." So your false dichotomy is EVERYTHING is culturally significant or NOTHING is culturally significant? Because that's the only meaning that makes even the tiniest shred of sense in that context. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact it was my poor attempt at humour. I'm sorry you don't like the article and feel it is not useful to you, but I think that this information could be useful for other people. It would be a shame if the information were deleted, I think. It could be merged into a larger article, perhaps, but I don't see what harm it is doing as a small article in its own right. Quite often, merged articles end up being rather unreadable and unfocused. Take a look at Planet of the Apes, where the article tries to extensively describe a novel and a rather different film in the same page, with rather poor consequences for readability and focus. As for significance, Wikipedia contains things like individual articles for every single episode of the Simpsons cartoons, individual articles on particular trees, and individual articles on streets and roads in cities. I don't see why it can't tolerate a few dozen articles on the snack foods eaten by a country with a population of 120 million people. Most of the Japanese snacks don't have particularly much in common with each other anyway. The wagashi article already deals with traditional Japanese sweets, and then there are individual pages for most of the wagashi anyway. The List of Japanese snack foods could be extended into a longer article if there is some common point in all of these snacks which needs to be dealt with together I suppose. Anyway I say to people who are interested in doing that, why not go and edit the relevant pages, instead of discussing doing it here? Actions speak louder etc. --DannyWilde 02:10, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.