Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalduny


 * 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 and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kalduny

 * View single debate
 * View single debate

Poorly written article with no references and containing lots of NPOV opinions. Parts of it read like a how-to. I tried to verify some statements with a search engine, but got only Wikipedia mirrors. Johntex\talk 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a recipe book. MER-C 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Am willing to change once the how-to stuff gets removed. MER-C 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per above and sounds like it is copied from a website.  B e  a  rly  541  07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nashville Monkey 11:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced about the article, still not written in an encyclopedic tone (needs How-to and weasles removed), however, if someone is working on the article to improve it I am willing to change my vote to Keep for the time being. If it doesn't improve to encyclopedic levels in the near future it can always be brought back to Afd. Nashville Monkey 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the article, maybe this will be ok. Nashville Monkey 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the keep for the article but was it closed properly? Nashville Monkey 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Author is professional writer for Belarusian encyclopedia (participated Энцыклапедыя ВКЛ, and other related books). Article is not completely receipt, but a history too. If dish is not well known in the West, it doesn't mean that article doesn't have right to exists. May be you should try to search information on Belarusian/Russian. --EugeneZelenko 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Information on the English wikipedia has to be in English and verifiable with English sources. If the cookbook portion is removed in favor and of the history/cultural aspects of the dish and if these are backed up with some in-line citations to English languagh references are provided, then I would change my opinion to "keep".  Johntex\talk 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: information has to be verifiable, but not necessary with English sources: sources in any language are acceptable, but of course English sources, when available, are preferable. WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Notice the whenever possible part... Fram 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me on this point. At this time, the article now has two references. It still has problems such as weasel words (E.g. "Some people maintain it came from...") but those are really problems for clean-up, not deletion.  Therefore, I am prepared to switch my vote to keep.  My thanks to EugeneZelenko for adding the references. Johntex\talk 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I had added references (from User:Alies' Biely e-mail). It's books published in Poland. You could also Google: Калдуны (Belarusian), Колдуны (Russian), Kołduny (Polish). Sorry, I don't know Lithuanian name for dish. You could ask help of users who know these languages and whom you trust to verify dish existence. --EugeneZelenko 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. per Eugene Zelenko. When proposing deletion for an article, please go to the respective portal 1 and announce it there, so that other Belarusian Wikipedia users may know that the article is posted for deletion. Even if the article is unreferenced and may not be in the encyclopedic tone, that doesn't mean that you need to delete it... With some work, the article will turn out great. Why attack innocent articles like this, when there are lots more nn and "vandal" created articles lurking around here? —dmytro/s-ko/ 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack, it's an effort to ensure we comply with our policy on verifiability. The article has been around since January 2006 and no one has added a single reference.  If it is an important article, then please improve it so it is worth keeping.  Thanks! Johntex\talk 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the discussion page for the article is completely blank. If there is a WikiPortal or WikiProject that has an interest in the article, then you need to say so on the discussion page.  We are not mind readers. Please improve and add references to the article and I will gladly switch to "keep", but as it is now, it does not meet Wikipedia policy for verifiability, tone, or content. Johntex\talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that Wikipedia needs references to comply with WP:V policy, but for some things, the references will be hard to find, unless someone has a book about tradtional Belarusian dishes. Not all things can be found on the web, and I presume that not every person in Belarus has access to internet (the way it is in Ukraine) so the references for the article can probably be found in a book. Perhaps we should contact the creator of the article (he has his e-mail address posted on his userpage) and ask him to provide us with references... —dmytro/s-ko/ 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea. Since you are more familiar with the topic than I am, can you please send the e-mail?  Certainly, books can be used as sources, but books do get tricky because our sources are supposed to be accessible "to any wikipedian".  It would be great if we could find at least one web link, but let's see what the author may be able to provdie for us.  Thanks for your help, Johntex\talk 18:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well actually, I am not familiar with the topic, and barely know anything about it. Perhaps some kindly soul who knows smthing about the topic from P:BEL would want to contact the author of the article... I might have a chance to e-mail the author, but cannot promise anything, and byt the time I recieve an answer, this AfD may already be closed... —dmytro/s-ko/ 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. Furthermore, I don't see any requirement in the deleation policy that requires portal notification. ArmAndLeg 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eugene.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Culturally notable and verifiable. `'mikkanarxi 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the article could use some trimming and "compressing" (e.g., two leading paragraphs bar one phrase, like 3/4 of "recipe section"). Yury Tarasievich 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole Wikipedia. I thought the problem of Wikipedia is that anyone from the street can contribute, now I see, that another big problem is that the editors are idiots, imagining that "if I dont know the matter, I should delete it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.67.242 (talk • contribs)
 * You are wrong on both counts. The problem with Wikipedia is that there are people like you who spout off without reading our policies.  Information has to be verifiable by reliable sources.  Otherwise, when a reader encounters a topic with which they are unfamiliar, they are unable to judge the accuracy of our information. To turn your statement around, "If I know the matter, then it should be easy to write the article in such a way that it is referenced.  Then it will be worth keeping and there will be no question of deleting it." If we were to do things your way and not question the veracity of our articles, we'd have to leave every unreferenced hoax or bit of originial reserach in Wikipedia.  Thank you, but no. Johntex\talk 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
Okay people, since everyone was a lot of people were in agreement that the article needed a rewrite but noone started, I re wrote the article, I have no knowledge (at all) of the subject matter but do know how things should be arranged. I took out parts that just didn't belong such as the country is dominated by Russian pelmeni and, partly, by the Ukrainian vareniki. This just didn't belong in an article about a food item, I rearranged paragraphs and took out any hint of how-to (which also doesn't belong). If I was mistaken the original is stored here so nothing was lost. So if you would all take a look, I would certainly appreciate it. Nashville Monkey 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks about right. Possibly the Dumpling page should be amended, too. Yury Tarasievich 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added an "unreferenced" tag to the Dumpling article. It suffers from a couple of the same problems (Eg "...filling meal in winter-time" as if they aren't filling in summer-time?)  but not nearly as bad as the Kalduny page did.  I also left a note at Talk:Dumpling pointing out some issues with that article. Johntex\talk 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks like a good start to a useful article, though better references are needed. WMMartin 16:34, 8 December 2006 (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.