Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources of Chinese culinary history


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

List of sources of Chinese culinary history

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a scattered list of sources (nearly all of which are red links) for some generic Chinese cuisine articles. Looks completely useless; sources would have long been added into a references section in whatever articles that used this list, and the list is completely vague as to what exactly it sources. In fact, it doesn't seem to be a list of sources at all, just random articles that are hardly related to each other.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - It appears to be copied from the German Wiki. It is completely unclear why this article xists or what the inclusion criteria for this list is. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Useful list that could be a navigational guide and be references for history of Chinese cuisine-related articles.--Caspian blue 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I update the list by expanding contents and sourcing with reliable references. Please see the progress.--Caspian blue 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More I add and read sources, more I get to realize that the list has very valuable information to not only Chinese cuisine, but also Chinese medicine, and herbs, and East Asian cultural subjects. Given the comprehensive information on German Wikipedia, I'm convinced that the creator of the list is a German expert in Chinese medicine and food therapy. The list is correctly compiled by period and each entry is carefully chosen. Actually I intended to create a list of historical Korean culinary books, so I can easily accumulate the list. I once saw a similar list written all in Chinese on Chinese medicine sites, but could not find it this time. However, English sources can be easily found because of the notability that the subject has. If somebody asks me about what the Shijing, Confucian studies, other poetry works have something to do with cuisine, I'd say those refers to not only foods, but also eating habits, and historical contexts. Some of books even refer to foreign dishes. At a first glance, the list filled with unintelligable Chinese characters had no reference and no information, but the nominator is a native speaker of Chinese, so he can easily detect what each entry means. However, he nominated it to be deleted. He also tried to PROD List of Chinese dishes. That practice does not help improve the articles.--Caspian blue 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I tried to, I couldn't make any sense about this article or the other one, List of Chinese dishes (especially when there's a category designed just for this purpose, and contains far more entries than that one). Also isn't it a little generalizing if you assume that Chinese can always be understood? It's a language like any other, and fragments of text on articles with a nonsensical title is... very hard to understand.  GraYoshi2x► talk 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Do you think the article List of Spanish dishes is a redundancy of Category:Spanish cuisine? --Caspian blue 23:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're just confusing me with a completely unrelated article. What I was trying to say was that the original article was completely redundant and offered no useful information besides a generic picture. The Spanish dishes list complements the category very well, while this (and the Chinese dishes list) only provide redundant information and nothing much more useful besides that. And I really doubt it's possible to convey much more useful information.  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't confuse you at all. I see many potentials from the list of Chinese dishes as it is. The list of Spanish dishes started from "zero" but has a good shape (still needs more references though). A small improvement by editors can turn a seemingly useless article into a valuable article. I just want to say deleting is not always a right solution. Do you think the current article in question still has no valuable information?--Caspian blue 00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing what you've contributed to it, I'm more neutral now. I'll leave this up to the other editors and see what the result is.  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you would withdraw the nomination at this stage.--Caspian blue 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic.--Yopie 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to a subpage of the Food wikiproject. This looks more like a tool for development of articles than a valid list article in its own right.  Otherwise if it gets blue links it could become part of a portal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you look at the Yuan dynasty section that I expanded today? The list is not just a tool for generating blue links. The list is also a timetable to show the Chinese culinary history and flow. This can be compared with List of online encyclopedias too, but I think it has more potential than the latter.--Caspian blue 23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep OK it is looking like it could make a valid list article in it self. I had rejected the speedy delete earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any type of historical list comprised of 100s of years of materials needs to be kept. A list does not have to resemble an article.  There is no rule in wikipedia that says lists are not allowed. If people want examples of unenyclopedic lists, just type "list of" at the search box and watch the huge drop down list of stuff having no importance that doesn't get challenged. Benjwong (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is an interesting time line of culinary history that has potential. Let Caspian work on this, lists are her forte. Being in East Asia, she has better access to reliable, secondary sources on the subject than us in the West and can make this a viable list in short order. --Jeremy (blah blah) 10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - An encyclopedic article listing precious sources of Chinese culinary history. The importance of this article should be clear to all editors, not just those active in editing articles on Chinese cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - an invaluable, well-sourced and informative list. There is no requirement for lists to be restricted to blue-linked items. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, when GraYoshi2x nominated the article for deletion, it was like this, but I saw a potential, so expanded. But if the nominator still thinks that the article is redundant of the pertinent category, well, I suggest him to rethink about purposes of lists and categories--Caspian blue 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't even said anything about that in the deletion rationale. Lately it seems you've just been posting the same message at a list-related AfD instead of actually reading the reasons why it was posted. What do red links and blue links even have to do with this discussion (I did mention it, but that wasn't my main point at all)? That just plain confuses me.  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bartlett above says 'if it gets blue links'. It is not all about GraYoshi2x. Occuli (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Listing over two thousand years worth of historical documents that exist, which mention a specific topic, is clearly encyclopedic. The fact that the English wikipedia doesn't have articles for all the Chinese historical documents, thus the reason for the many red links, is not a valid reason to try to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  09:00, 16 May 2009 (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.