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.
Delete - no sources indicate that these foods are exclusive to Christmas or even strongly associated with Christmas. Otto4711 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish, provided that references are provided. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessarily Christmas dishes, as mentioned above, and even if some magical reliable source was found, it'd still be crufty. List of Bachelor Dinners would be a lot more useful. --Action Jackson IV 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate and unsourced list. If you look hard enough anything is eaten at christmas...including the cold remains of whatever was left over from the huge party the night before - Peripitus(Talk) 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not attributed does not mean not attributagle. I added a couple of refs. The reason this page doesn't have refs (which it needs), is that people think it's obvious that turkey, etc. is a christmas dish. Reasons to improve are not reasons to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 12:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or could it possibly be that the reason it doesn't have references is because it's absurd to believe that 98% of the items on the list are in any way specifically associated with Christmas? I mean come on. Look at the list. Australians specifically associate vegetables with Christmas? Beer? Seafood and barbeque? This isn't a list of Christmas foods, it's someone's Christmas dinner menu. We drank milk in my house on Christmas every year, but it wasn't a Christmas food because we also drank milk in my house every other day of the year. Otto4711 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Peregrine Fisher. Instead of putting this on Afd, it would have been better to request more references. Clearly there are many Christmas-specific food customs around the world, and it's important to have information about them. I'll add some references too. --David Edgar 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced and shown to be traditional to Christmas worldwide and the related country specific articles where they have been split out. A discussion of what food is part of a cultural tradition is encyclopaedic, a list of spuds, sprouts, turkey isn't. Nuttah68 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so split Christmas worldwide into country specific articles, such as Polish Christmas traditions. It is a cleaner and more encyclopaedic solution than to keep a largely unsourced list of ingedients that provides no context. Nuttah68 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that Christmas worldwide should be split, and the info here added to the resulting articles. I don't have a problem with this list being a source of redundant information, though. - Peregrine Fisher 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it provides a nice, quick, organized way to figure out "Christmas" dishes by country (which considering the large number of dishes listed in the category, is almost a necessity), even if not everything is sourced yet. I am sick of people who put things up for deletion because "most of it isn't sourced". Sourcing takes time, and something unsourced now could have a cite less than an hour from now on this site. Further, if there are "questionable" dishes listed, what the hell is preventing anyone from a.) removing them from the from the list b.) digging up a cite to prove or disprove it or c.) tagging it with "citation needed"? That's what we HAVE [citation needed] tags and their brethern for, folks. That's why we can EDIT these things. Having such a list is very, very useful (especially given that most individual Christmas dishes in the category for them are NOT listed by country, but by name). Does it need work? I'd say so. But worth deleting? Hardly. - User:Runa27 not logged in.
But the point is that almost everything on that list is not specifically a "Christmas dish." There is no point in asking for a cite that people eat turkey or cake or drink champagne at Christmas because it's common knowledge that people do in fact eat turkey and cake and drink champagne on Christmas. That something is eaten by some people at Christmas does not mean that it's a "Christmas dish." The list is based on a false premise. And as always, WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. Otto4711 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, this is another case among many (the current AfD discussion on List of fat actors is another) where you have insisted that some outside authority or scientific measurement or the like must already have certified clear boundaries for a list. The absence of that kind of authority does not mean a list is indiscriminate, just that cultural lists have different inclusion criteria from, say the list of periodic elements or some category of flora or fauna. We all know that Christmas foods exist. We all should accept that there might be questions about the inclusion of some items on the list. Proper citation can regulate that well enough for our purposes, and if you don't believe that, you should explain why. Noroton 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons given so far, plus that I haven't seen any arguments to delete that seem convincing and properly policy-based to me. If you add any new reasons, feel free to drop a note on my talk page to see if I'll change my vote. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see, the thing is WP:ATT is policy. But I guess policy arguments don't actually matter. Otto4711 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I haven't seen the people in this AfD debate who are arguing Wikipedia:Attribution to be applying it as deletion criteria in the way that I understand that policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for details, especially reasons not to delete. Remember, an article that has X problem should usually be kept, so long as there is adequate reason to believe that X problem can be fixed to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. In deletion debates, it is not merely necessary to show that an article has a problem, it is also necessary to show that the problem is likely unfixable. In the case of attributions, the usual solution is either (1) add attributions or (2) tag the uncited material or (3) delete the uncited material. Christmas-oriented cooking is a huge subject, with each nation having its traditions, and dozens of cookbooks coming out each year. There's no particular reason to believe that this article is uncitable, not notable enough to exist, or too poorly defined to exist. All the reasons to delete the article that have been brought up so far are, in my opinion, article quality issues rather than deletion criteria, and could be solved within a few weeks at most if some talk page dialogues are started. Does it ever occur to you to bring up quality issues on the article talk pages before bringing an AfD? It really seems to me as if about three-fourths of your AfD nominations are a result of impatience with article quality, rather than being grounded in a thorough understanding of WP:NOT, WP:ATT, WP:DP and other policies. I know that policies can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but I do think your interpretation tends to be farther from the norm than usual. I really think it would help all of us if you made more use of cleanup tags and talk pages rather than doing what seems to me to be hasty AfDs. AfDs should be a last resort, except on articles that are clearly in risk of violating WP:DP. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've already clearly demonstrated that despite your ability to link to various policies you have no faith in anyone else's ability to read them. Otto4711 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at WP:ATT, and nowhere does it say that simply because an article hasn't had enough sourcing that it therefore must go, and when I go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and look at "Problem with page ... [Item:] Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations)" I see this under "Solution:" "Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Clearly, going first to AfD with an article problem is discouraged and actually working on an article that you've got quality problems with is encouraged. These quotations can be found under the section called "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I have every faith that you have the ability to read that policy and have read it. The question is, what's your reason for not applying it? Not a rhetorical question, but one that deserves a serious response. Noroton 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvement, perfectly fixable with enough TLC, and per above, also WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Useful, encyclopedic and perfectly capable of being filled out with references. Tt 225 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the idea that this can't be sourced is absolutely ludicrous. For most Christmas-related food and drink you have to choose among too many sources. I get the impression "I don't like the subject" is the real argument here, based on what's been said. Deletion discussions should not be popularity contests. User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea makes several excellent points. Noroton 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the real argument is and continues to be that having sources that say people sometmes eat one food or another on a specific holiday doesn't mean that the food itself is exclusively or even strongly associated with that holiday. Eating something on Christmas doesn't make it a "Christmas dish." I would not argue WP:DONTLIKEIT because I know that it is not a valid reason for deleting an article so I would appreciate it if you would address the actual arguments that I do make and not make stuff up. Otto4711 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being unclear: the "I don't like it" comments were addressed to others. I do address your real arguments, twice in fact: I addressed your comment of 23:10, 11 March 2007 immediately below it, and I addressed your replies to Mermaid of the Baltic Sea just under your final reply to her. Noroton 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a useful article. Many lists are not useful, and would be better as categories, but that does not apply here. Peterkingiron 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As always, WP:USEFUL is not a compelling reason to keep an article. Otto4711 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh). And, as always, that is still only a personal opinion as WP:AADD is just an essay. -- Black Falcon 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made (i.e., adding sources) to the article, which clearly shows that the information can be sourced. -- Black Falcon 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the inclusion of items on the list that are not there, the nature of Wikipedia is such that anyone can edit articles to add nonsense. However, let's also not forget that anyone can edit articles to remove such additions. -- Black Falcon 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per recent improvements and per arguments of Black Falcon and Noroton. There are distinctive nationalal and ethnic customs as to what foods and beverages are served at Christmas. It is a bogus argument to claim that something cannot be a "Christmas dish" if it is eaten at other times. Edison 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.