Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian cuisine


 * 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   no consensus. slakr \ talk / 02:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hawaiian cuisine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This WP:TWODABS page does not list any unrelated topics; rather, it lists the general topic of the Cuisine of Hawaii, and a subtopic of that general topic, the Native cuisine of Hawaii. These topics are not ambiguous to one another in the way that, for example, the mythical phoenix is ambiguous to the Arizona city, Phoenix. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that Native Hawaiian cuisine is itself discussed in the general article on the Cuisine of Hawaii. Delete and redirect to Cuisine of Hawaii. bd2412 T 01:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest it may be contradictory to say both delete and redirect, I agree redirect to "Cuisinie of Hawaii", with a hatnote to the other article, not sure we needed to bring this to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean delete the current disambiguation page and create a redirect in its place. I think AfD is appropriate for this because the current content must still be deleted. bd2412  T 01:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you can just withdraw this AfD and revert to the previous version. Unless there's a reason why we need an AfD instead of a revert? Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for the creation of this page implies that it is discussion-based. For the sake of finality, I think we are better served by generating a clear consensus in favor of the proposed reversion. This will make it easier to address future shenanigans. bd2412  T 01:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a large community discussion from 2012 which generated a consensus that was recently overturned by a disruptive sockpuppet based on no discussion for the sole purpose of creating a content fork based on material copy and pasted from other articles, in effect, overturning the previous community consensus based on a whim. There's a good reason this account is currently blocked. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom and previous stable version before the Candleabracadabra sock puppet returned to disrupt Wikipedia once again with the creation of this unneeded dab page. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Viriditas, also worth noting that any edit by a banned user can be reverted without discussion, so you are free to revert this article back to the redirect that it was.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Keep  per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Andrew (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Andrew, I have no dispute, and have not engaged in this manner at all until I saw this clearly unambiguous topic show up on our list of problematic disambiguation pages. Please assume good faith with respect to my motives, and please consider the issue at hand - whether we need a "disambiguation page" that pretty clearly violates WP:TWODABS and WP:DABCONCEPT, and which creates errors that disambiguators must address. bd2412  T 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are proposing that the page be changed from being a dab page to being a redirect page. Deletion would be quite redundant and unnecessary in making this edit and so AFD is not an appropriate process and this discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK.  As for ambiguity, the current page content seems quite correct.  The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink states that "Food of Hawaii can be separated into two categories: Hawaiian food, the food of the native islanders, and local food, the eclectic blend of the cuisines of later settlers."  The Pacific Region states that "Two parallel cuisines developed: Hawaiian food associated with the Polynesians and haole food associated with the settlers from New England."  As we have good sources supporting this content, it should be retained per our editing policy.  If your real objection is some technical point about dab pages, then this may be resolved by ordinary editing as I shall demonstrate. Andrew (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, those sources are a bit confused, but almost accurate. Food historians who write about Hawaii generally break down the two categories listed above into three, and the three categories into five, so when we talk about the cuisine of Hawaii, we are talking about five distinct styles, one of which is Polynesian or Native Hawaiian.  The term "haole food" is not actually used.  Post-contact cuisine includes that of the British, Americans, missionaries and whalers.  The New England influence came from the American missionaries.  "Local food" actually does not refer to the New England influence as your source seems to suggest, but to the later ethnic immigrant influence that arose in the plantations.  "Local food" therefore, has a distinctive ethnic component, often Asian, sometimes Portuguese.  New England influence may be found in "local food" but it plays a smaller role. "Local food" isn't "settler food" however, it is another type entirely, and it is one that evolved in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As the discussion is now WP:TLDR, it seems too late for a speedy close. Andrew (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect - with respect to Andrew, I see this more as an effort to dispel ambiguity and confirm a strong consensus rather than to end a dispute (doesn't look like much of a dispute). I don't think anyone is trying to game anything. As pointed out above, the nominator could simply have reversed the actions of a blocked/banned editor but chose to come here to seek consensus. On the issue of the disambiguation itself, the nominators rationale seems sound. Stalwart 111  12:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawaiian cuisine seems to be a better title than Cuisine of Hawaii, just as we have French cuisine, Chinese cuisine, African cuisine, &c. Note also that these cuisines are divided into more detailed cuisines, such as Provencal cuisine, Cantonese cuisine and Ghanaian cuisine.  As Hawaaian cuisine contains different sub-cuisines with particular names, traditions and heritages, it seems appropriate to have a multi-level structure as we do for other complex cases. Andrew (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'd have no objection to the primary topic being at that title with appropriate links and main tags to Native cuisine of Hawaii which is a sub-topic. I've spent quite a bit of time working on Christmas Island cuisine which has a similar issue. Australian cuisine is the primary topic. You could accurately describe Christmas Island cuisine as "Australian cuisine" but a disambiguation page wouldn't make any sense. People looking for native Hawaiian cuisine will likely include the word "native" in their search or will be directed to the primary cuisine topic with links from history and native cuisine sections. While "two parallel cuisines developed", it's not true to say that only one should be dealt with at Hawaiian cuisine. That article should deal with both and all other sub-cuisines too - anything that forms part of historical or modern cuisine in Hawaii. From there we should have sub-articles dealing with each of the notable sub-cuisines. The Hawaiian cuisine article shouldn't be limited to "food associated with the settlers from New England" with all others relegated to sub-articles.


 * I've created a little flow chart to illustrate what I mean. Stalwart 111  00:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually think that this is the best solution, for consistency. I can see no reason for Hawaiian cuisine to contain content different from Cuisine of Hawaii. bd2412  T 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew, Stalwart111, and BD2412 make good points, but I believe they are mistaken, and the above flow chart is incorrect. Hawaii, a former Kingdom and sovereign nation, is home to the Native Hawaiians, and their food is discussed in terms of the cuisine of Ancient Hawaii, but this is not the primary topic. The primary topic of this article is the cuisine of Hawaii. "Hawaiian" specifically refers to a native person of Hawaiian descent. If we talk about "Hawaiian cuisine" we are talking about Polynesian, Ancient Hawaiian, or Native Hawaiian food. The cuisine of Hawaii is composed of Native Hawaiian cuisine, immigrant cuisine, and contemporary cuisine.  Immigrant cuisine can be further broken down into subcategories leading to a total of five overall distinct types of food in Hawaii (Polynesian, Native Hawaiian; European, American, Missionary, and Whalers; Plantation immigrant, ethnic foods; Local food of Hawaii; Hawaii Regional Cuisine). This has been discussed extensively in the past, and community consensus determined "that Cuisine of Hawaii is a preferable name for the general article." Therefore, "Hawaiian cuisine" is not a better title than "Cuisine of Hawaii".  "Hawaiian cuisine" has been a stable redirect for this reason.  Clearly, there is an argument here for that redirect to do one of many things: 1) remain as before, a redirect to the primary cuisine article; 2) become a dab page 3) redirect to "Native cuisine of Hawaii".  As for the flow chart, the primary topic here is "Cuisine of Hawaii".  Native cuisine of Hawaii is a possible subtopic.   There is no such possible topic as "New-England origin Hawaiian food" since that topic is Cuisine of New England, a related topic.  It is discussed in the sources as a post-contact, "Kama'aina" food, one of many. This AfD should not be used in place of a requested move discussion.  I recommend that the nominator withdraw the nomination and that a discussion take place on the talk page(s) to determine the course of action for the current redirect.  We are not discussing a deletion topic here so this AfD serves no purpose but to muddy the water. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my flow-chart was just to illustrate what I wasn't able to explain properly in prose. Your rationale with regard to the primary topic title makes sense and there does seem to be an existing consensus for that. The "New England" title was just a place-holder to explain where in that arrangement Andrew's suggestion would fit. I've amended the flow-chart to reflect your comment (I think). Stalwart 111  07:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The most important point, I think, is that Hawaiian cuisine does not mean anything different from Cuisine of Hawaii, and that (as the flow chart indicates) there should be one general article on all the kinds of cuisine associated with Hawaii, with specific kinds of Hawaiian cuisine being treated as subtopics. bd2412  T 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hawaiian cuisine" does mean something different, as I explained up above. "Hawaiian" refers to "Native Hawaiian" or "Ancient Hawaiian" cuisine.   People who live in Hawaii are not "Hawaiians", they are either Native Hawaiian by ethnicity or they are residents of Hawaii.  Long-term residents are called kama'aina or locals, however  locals generally means that you are born and raised in Hawaii, whereas Kama'aina is often used for someone who was not.  We already have a stable, general article on "all kinds of cuisine" associated with Hawaii, and it is appropriately titled, "Cuisine of Hawaii" for good reason.  Whether we need to treat specific kinds of cuisine as subtopics depends on factors that have nothing to do with this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a distinction in the sources between "Hawaiian food" and "local food", and between "Hawaiian food" and "haole food", but no source makes a distinction between the phrase "Hawaiian cuisine" and the phrase "Cuisine of Hawaii". Since these are the titles at issue, please provide a source making this specific distinction. bd2412  T 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hawaiian food" is a synonym for "Hawaiian cuisine". Therefore, you have already acknowledged the distinction.  Are you making an argument from ignorance here?  Are you seriously claiming that the term "Hawaiian food" and "Hawaiian cuisine" mean different things on Wikipedia?  We don't call our articles "Food of X", we call them "Cuisine of Y" by definition and naming convention. I've already discussed how the word "Hawaiian" is generally used to refer to the Native people of Hawaii, not to the cuisine of Hawaii. Since you've already demonstrated the distinction, can you please stop with the fallacies and withdraw this poorly nominated AfD? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an odd position to take given how easy it is to find sources which describe "Hawaiian cuisine" as an umbrella term with the same meaning as you proffer for "Cuisine of Hawaii", encompassing both native and imported cuisines - for example:
 * Bree Kessler, Moon Big Island of Hawai'i: Including Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park (2012): Hawaiian cuisine consists of several genres: “plantation foods," “local foods," and “Hawaii Regional Cuisine."
 * Xiaojian Zhao, ‎Edward J.W. Park, PH.D., Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History (2013), p. 485: Hawaiian cuisine can be split into two categories: Native Hawaiian and “local.”
 * Corey Sandler, ‎Michael Roney, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hawaii (2007), p. 26: Because of its history as a melting pot of cultures, Hawaiian cuisine borrows the best of many world cuisines, from Japanese, Chinese, Korean, native Hawaiian, and even Portuguese, to a fusion of them all.
 * I will therefore elect to follow the sources. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another fallacy, this time the search engine test fallacy. Will the fallacies ever end? "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement can mean." BIG FAIL.  You did a  Google search on your preferred term and then decide, based on three instances of erroneous usage in non-specialist sources, that your search results are accurate.  Are you kidding me? Moon Big Island of Hawai'i isn't a book about the cuisine of Hawaii.  It's a tertiary travel guide about the Big Island.  The author writes about the Big Island and uses the term "Hawaiian cuisine" loosely and without regard to how sources about the cuisine of Hawaii actually use it. Why does  Arnonld Hura, for example, name his 178 page book,Kau Kau: Cuisine & Culture in the Hawaiian Islands, rather than "Hawaiian cuisine"?  Is it because he recognizes the distinction between traditional Native Hawaiian cuisine and the cuisine of Hawaii in general?  As if one tertiary source that isn't about cuisine in Hawaii wasn't enough, now you point to a second tertiary sources that isn't about food in Hawaii to support your cherry picked fallacy, this time Zhao & Park's Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History.  Zhao & Park list their references at the bottom, Laudan 1996 and Takaki 1983, neither one of which use the term "Hawaiian cuisine" in this matter.  So, as it turns out "Hawaiian cuisine" in Zhao & Park's tertiary sources was a naming convention that they chose to use for their encyclopedia about Asian-Americans, but not an actual term used in the literature about the cuisine in Hawaii.  BD2412, this is not how we use sources.  The sources about the cuisine of Hawaii, written by historians and food specialists, do not use the term "Hawaiian cuisine" to refer to the general food of Hawaii.  That you found two tertiary sources who chose to use this term even though the sources they cite do not is not a big surprise.  What's surprising is that you actually think that the fallacy of the search engine result is actually how we choose titles and write articles.  It's not.  First of all, we rely on secondary sources about the topic.  Second of all, we choose authoritative sources about the topic.  Third of all, we do the research and read the actual sources.  I hope this is clear and that I've corrected your misunderstanding.  Rachel Laudan provides an extensive bibliography on pp. 277-288 that you should pursue if you are interested in what the sources actually say.  The next time you respond to this discussion please respond only with sources about the cuisine of Hawaii.  Please do not try to cherry pick your preferred search term from sources about other topics.  We use the title "Cuisine of Hawaii" because 1) that is an acceptable naming convention on Wikipedia, and 2) there is an acknowledged ambiguity with the term "Hawaiian", which is reserved for the Native Hawaiian people, not for the cuisine of Hawaii in general.  This is the same reason why "Hawaii Regional Cuisine" is not named "Hawaiian Regional Cuisine".  Given that the most contemporary style of Hawaii-related cuisine does not use the term "Hawaiian" in its name, I can still find many sources that use this name erroneously.   The fact that you can find this usage, does not imply it is acceptable or correct.  It merely shows that many authors and editors are ignorant on the subject.  If we were to follow your argument, we should now change the title of our article on Hawaii Regional Cuisine to "Hawaiian Regional Cuisine".  Of course, this change would be wrong.  I believe this counterargument directly refutes your central point. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you address this to the content of the article? At the time that I nominated this page for deletion, it was a WP:TWODABS page indicating that the phrase "Hawaiian cuisine" may refer equally to Native Hawaiian cuisine or to Cuisine of Hawaii. TWODABS requires the page to point to the primary topic if there is one, so the existence of a disambiguation page at all indicates that the term can have either meaning, which is particularly problematic where one meaning is a subtopic of the other, as is clearly the case with Native Hawaiian cuisine, one kind of Cuisine of Hawaii. Currently, the article states: "Hawaiian cuisine is the food and distinctive dishes of the Hawaiian islands. This is divided into two main strands:- native Hawaiian cuisine — the Polynesian food eaten on the islands prior to European contact — and the foods imported and eaten by more recent immigrants such as the settlers from New England". This would seem to differ from your above suggestion that "Hawaiian cuisine" does not encompass "the foods imported and eaten by more recent immigrants". If the current content is wrong, then the page should redirect to Native cuisine of Hawaii; if the current content is right, then all we have is a content fork of the existing Cuisine of Hawaii. The question is not whether it is wrong, but how it is wrong.  bd2412  T 02:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another false dilemma. This isn't an either/or situation, and the ambiguity of the term "Hawaiian" leads to the primary topic not to the Native Hawaiian fork.  If that fork is ever to evolve, then with the existence of two pages, we would have a hatnote on the cuisine article, because that is the primary topic.  You keep seeing this as a black and white situation when it is not.  To recap yet again, previous move discussions left the article under discussion as a redirect to "Cuisine of Hawaii".  Recently, a sockpuppet deliberately ignored this consensus and began disrupting the entire topic area and made a complete mess of the policies and guidelines in the process.  This included removing the redirect and replacing it with a dab page, without any discussion, and forking content out of the main cuisine article into a new article.   We already have a stable article on the "Cuisine of Hawaii', appropriately sourced to secondary sources about the subject.  The latest version of the nominated dab page has forked the stable topic version, using two tertiary sources that cite the secondary sources incorrectly.  Furthermore, those particular sources use the term "food of Hawaii" which is synonymous with the term "Cuisine of Hawaii'.  And while it may seem logical to simply split this into pre-contact and post-contact foods as these tertiary sources do, by identifying two main strands, that's only a top-level perspective.  Food historians like Laudan split the two types further into five distinct types (although at the time of her book, HRC was new, so she mostly focused on only four, but still acknowledged HRC).  This is because each type builds upon the other, with HRC incorporating all four previous styles. As I said before, this nomination should be withdrawn, the redirect should be restored, and the discussion should continue on the appropriate talk page.  We don't fork stable articles, we don't create them with tertiary sources that differ from the secondary sources, and we don't use AfD as a substitute for article talk discussion.  There's a hell of a lot of disruption going on here, and it really needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that we agree that the current content needs to go, and a redirect should exist in its place, which is the point of the AfD. Please note that my proposal was to delete the disambiguation page (which you seem to agree should not be at this title) and redirect this title elsewhere (which you have just advocated). I have no objection to the page redirecting to Native cuisine of Hawaii; I just don't think that it is a title requiring a disambiguation page. Turning a page with content into a redirect still requires deletion of that content, so I believe that an AfD is required in such a circumstance (and, indeed, we often have AfDs that result in redirects). bd2412  T 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is deletion required when all one has to do is revert to the previous redirect? I said before, there is an argument for a dab page, but it is a poor one at best.  We could create a dab page that lists many different types of Hawaii-related food articles.  But again, I think at present, the dab should be reverted back to the redirect before the commotion began and a hatnote placed on the primary.  Again, a dab page is one solution to this issue, but perhaps not the best solution. Still, I don't see anything requiring deletion.  At the end of the day this is a reqmove/dab discussion, not an AfD. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a disamb page. Native cuisine of Hawaii, Cuisine of Hawaii, and Hawaii regional cuisine make three pages that people could be searching for.   D r e a m Focus  00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you review WP:DABCONCEPT, you will see that this is the textbook example of a collection of related terms. bd2412  T 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When you search for "Hawaiian cuisine" you are looking for one of those three things.  D r e a m Focus  05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What if you're looking for all kinds of cuisine found in Hawaii, collectively? bd2412  T 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Add anything else to the list then. Do you plan on making all the listed articles merged together as one somehow?   D r e a m Focus  15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, since that is what WP:DABCONCEPT requires where the purportedly ambiguous topics are not unrelated. The newly added topics are also not title matches. There seems to be some confusion here between disambiguation pages, which list articles having the same title (like Mercury (planet) and Mercury (god)), and articles that happen to be subtopics of the same topic. This is why we don't have a disambiguation page at the title, Bill Clinton listing Presidency of Bill Clinton as an ambiguous topic. The latter is one aspect of the former, just as all of the topics listed on this page are aspects of the cuisine of Hawaii, but are not all title matches. bd2412  T 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close: This is a topic for a move request or another discussion on the article's talk page. Since this is a plausible search term, deletion is off the table and the only possible outcomes are keeping the dab page or redirecting to one of the articles  p  b  p  04:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The nom is proposing a deletion by redirect (see policy WP:ATD-R). The policy says "If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus". Like talk pages, AfD is a forum for consensus, which the nom probably has a right to choose. -- Green  C  05:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a general talk page for any and every article. If people want to attract comment to an article's talk page, there are other processes including WP:RfC and WP:THIRD. Andrew (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * People have the right to start an AfD, is my point. It's a type of consensus discussion, just like talk page discussions. The policy says "talk page" but again, that is a generic way of saying "work it out through consensus" which is what an AfD is. I may propose the policy be amended to better reflect as it's too restricting as-is, editors have the right to deal with WP:ATD-R in any consensus-building way. -- Green  C  16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect I'm swayed by the arguments for redirection. The current page is neither fish nor fowl: article, list or dab page. A search on "Hawaiian cuisine" should redirect to the main article which then provides pathways to sub and related articles via See Also's, hatnotes, Main article:, and/or Categories: -- Green  C  05:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The process of ordinary editing is proving productive. The page is back to being a dab page and now has six plausible entries.  This addresses the original complaint of WP:TWODABS. Andrew (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a disambiguation page. With three viable articles (Cuisine of Hawaii, Native Hawaiian cuisine and Hawaii Regional Cuisine), along with the list article, it's a functional disambig page. Further discussion can always occur on the talk page. NorthAmerica1000 11:16, 5 June 2014 (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.