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. This discussion is a dog's breakfast, and illustrates how little consensus we have as a project, in practice, about the inclusion criteria for lists. Numerically, opinions are nearly equally divided. I have my own views about who has the stronger arguments, but because the relative vagueness of our rules and practices regarding lists, it's really difficult for me to give more weight to one side's views or the other's. The list is therefore kept by default only. Sandstein 06:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast drinks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of breakfast drinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no strong criteria over what drinks are included in the list and what are not. Plus Wikipedia is NOT a list or repositories of loosely associated topics Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"@Northamerica1000: is a dedicated, fantastic editor. The articles he produces are always high quality and this is no exception. --AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) below"

"Strong keep an encyclopedic and policy compliant topic, as demonstratd by the Colonel. As a member of wiki project Breakfast, I couldn't agree less with the view that the article content is low quality. It's a very nice article, I see it's benefited from considerable editing from our founding member, NorthAmerica1000 themselves - FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks"

--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding the article, it is surprising how difficult it is to find reliable sources that verify beverages as specific common breakfast drinks. --Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)"
" Indeed, the AfD was a bit of a mockery regarding inclusion criteria."..."Actually, with the current "definitions" (as is found in the article), it could even be taken a step further by interpreting a "breakfast drink" to be a drink which constitutes breakfast, in which case I can prove that Budweiser can serve as a breakfast drink --DexterPointy (talk · contribs)"
"...At the moment, it's kind of stating the obvious. "Here is a list of drinks, a drink being a liquid, that people consume at breakfast, being the first meal of the day". --Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)"
--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Northamerica1000: Beer is "very commonly and typically consumed at breakfast"? The article itself specifically associates this tradition with medieval Britain and says the tradition died out 300 years ago. The "olive oil" entry is clear OR that contradicts the cited sources, one of which doesn't mention either breakfast traditions or the Mediterranean (instead recommending its anglophone readers should have a shot of olive oil in the morning) and the other attributing it specifically to the fishermen of Crete in the 1960s. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DYK: "peafowl is also very tasty, with the breast meat making great schnitzel – just don’t overcook it!" Hunting Peafowl -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little excessive there Lynda. One article thats not your liking does not "demean" the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A historical section can be added to seperate out those. Reliable sourcing is not "arbitrary" unless you want to call WP completely "arbitrary" and ask for its deletion. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the "speedy keep" comments should be treated as simple "keep". The nominator clearly expressed a valid concern about the previous nomination that would justify another nomination after even a short time, and here's another one: of the three "keep" !votes (3-1 is a very weak consensus, by the way) one ignored a legitimate questioning of their !vote rationale for more than six days until the discussion was closed (and it might be pointed out that the same user rarely gives any recognition to such questions, apparently with the intention of avoiding both changing his !vote and having his argument being dismissed by the closer as having been discredited), and another showed up after seven days had passed, was similarly questioned, and then a few hours later the discussion was closed; in this light closing as "keep" rather than "no consensus" is somewhat unusual. If DexterPointy had renominated rather than following the proper procedure outlined at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that might have been grounds for a speedy keep, but the nominator was a third party uninvolved in the previous discussion, had legitimate concerns with the previous discussion, and had new reasons for deletion based on events that had taken place since the previous close. NA1000's saying that the nomination is unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion is bordering on AGF-violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Well now it seems uninvolved editors had been voting as delete rather than keep. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprising, honestly. Of the three people who !voted "keep" in the last AFD, two only ever !vote keep except perhaps in very rare occasions that I've been unable to locate, and of those two at least one has a habit of !voting "keep" any time he thinks he can get at least a "no consensus" result, so their having !voted keep honestly says almost nothing about how any random uninvolved editor would !vote. All that said, I'm still not convinced one way or the other, and I would appreciate your respecting my decision on that front. If you experience any more personal attacks or harassment from other editors, I would be happy to chime in and defend you, but I don't want to get in an argument (even one I know I can "win") over an article that I don't even have an opinion on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It was just a comment based on an observation. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding the notion above, "Who could ever possibly want to see a list of breakfast drinks, and how does it help in understanding any topic?", the page has received 5,443 page views in the last 90 days (as of this post), and the list serves as a navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. Per the number of page views, it's obvious that many readers have wanted to see such a list. North America1000 08:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among those views some two dozen, at the very least, are mine. It's a habit I have of examining and re-examining the material on which I offer suggestions. I'd imagine the same goes for my fellow contributors. In other words, the time when an article is up for AfD is probably not the best time for informative measurements of popularity. That's one point.
The other point is that viewer frequency is not to be confused with notability, and especially not with Wikipedian value. We could post up an article today about a sensationalist subject (I'm leaving specifics to the readers' imagination) and garner a huge load of views, yet the subject would probably be unworthy of an article. So, the rhetorical question "Who could ever possibly want to see a list of breakfast drinks?" stands. It indirectly denotes the utter lack of encyclopaedic value of this list. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a depository of indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. about North America's claim that the list can serve as "a navigational aid": How's that exactly? A user looking for breakfast drinks would head for the eponymous article. (It's not here but it should be. Yet, a list is no substitute for an article!) The user would get practically zero information from this list, since all it takes for an item to get into it is a source claiming this or that liquid edible can be a breakfast drink. This is a very lame criterion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: This is not a list of Every breakfast drink. This is a list of traditional and cultural breakfast drinks that have been proven to be a breakfast drink. Elephant milk isn't on List of drinks either, so are you going to complain there as well? I see what you are trying to say but it does not prove that the article should be deleted. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me a fantasist? Or an original worker? I'll decide which is worse, you know. -The Gnome(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: I am not calling you anything, I am just defending this article. Lets all calm down, I do not want to start a fight. If you see the page views and the importance of every item, it shows why this list is needed on wikipedia. @Northamerica1000: is right, list of drinks is essentially a list of lists. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a lame attempt at a semi-joke, AmericanAir88. Forgot the smiley, so here 'its. . -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, there is an entry called "Juice" to some extent your drink is covered. Plus, do you, @The Gnome:, have a reliable source for it being at least a regional common breakfast drink. Adding your drink would be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR with out a source instead of your false claim of the lack of its inclusion. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: So ... you fixed the article by removing the claim that a certain beverage is a "common breakfast drink" and simply claiming it is a fruit juice drink, with a source that assumes it is consumed at breakfast without actually saying anything about the history and significance of this tradition? This kind behaviour is making me want to !vote delete just so as not to encourage it down the line in other articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – List of drinks is essentially a lists of lists and main topics article; due to the high number of drinks in existence, the List of drinks article is limited to being organized categorically, based upon the main subcategories within the Drinks category page, along with information about primary topics and list article links. It's unclear how the article could be considered as a redundant content fork, because many of the entries in the breakfast drinks article are not even listed on the list page. North America1000 08:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Also, I have struck the second delete !vote posted directly above by Shadowowl, who has already opined with a delete !vote earlier in the discussion (above). Only one actual !vote is allowed, but commentary has no such restrictions. North America1000 15:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I don't know about the "delete" !voters saying the list is indiscriminate, but I, despite not actually having an opinion on whether the page is worth keeping, know it is. Look at the "grapefruit juice" entry, which is cited to two sources, neither of which actually call it a common breakfast drink. I've been waking myself up with Coca-Cola for the last coupla days (long story: basically I bought too much of the stuff for a party and wound up having a lot of leftovers after I'd run out of coffee) but that doesn't mean it deserves an entry on the list, and a bunch of the current ones seem to be just as bad. The list also indiscriminately mixes historical breakfast drinks (beer, salep) with modern ones (OJ), and drinks that are breakfast drinks in some cultures but not others with drinks that are breakfast drinks in others but not some cultures, without noting as much (lassi, salep), and a bunch of the longer descriptions (OJ, coffee) have nothing to do with breakfast. There are other problems, too, for example the implication that "choi" is a particular kind of Tajik tea, when in fact anyone who knows the history of the word (or just translations in a whole bunch of European and Asian languages) could easily guess that "choi" is just the Tajik word for "tea". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but editing problems in an article or list are generally not grounds for deletion - we mostly decide based on notability. See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:AADD (in particular WP:SURMOUNTABLE). There are no BLP or CopyVio issues here, and there are reliable sources to provide sourced material and to give structure and form to the list. If the list is poorly defined (and I would dispute that, as it is self-defining) then the response is to tighten the definition rather than delete. That's what our guidelines say. SilkTork (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, Reread "Breakfast: A History", it states "The juice from grapefruits is another morning favorite." One can reasonable infer "common breakfast drink" from "another morning favorite". Salep is noted as being a historical and regional/cultural breakfast drink and Lassi is noted as being an India one. And there are such things as sections. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but color me unimpressed, SilkTork.
-The first piece is from the blog iFocusHealth. It's advice about healthy stuff to drink with your breakfast. And, again, it's a blog. We don't take too kindly on blogs as sources.
-The next one, from William Reed's Beverage Daily, defines breakfast drinks "as any products that are marketed as ‘formulated supplementary food’ and aim to replace a traditional meal, usually breakfast, with a liquid on-the-go option." Which is an enormously wide net with an enormously wide catch. A list of infinite wonders, since all it takes for a liquid edible is to be "marketed" as breakfast.
-Third on the list is this piece from Food & Wine about, again, the "best breakfast drinks" including Apple-Celery Juice with Ginger and Parsley, the Açai Super Smoothie "beloved by surfers," and my favorite, the Carrot-Mango Lassi. Yes, all the links are red. You can figure out why.
-We go on with The Grocer wondering if the breakfast drinks' market will hit some monetary point in size in the future (£100mln). So, there is a breakfast-drinks market after all! Who would've guessed. Sarcasm intended.
The point is this: No one disputes that drinks exist that qualify, in whatever arbitrary or nutritional or fashion way, as breakfast drinks. Breakfast drinks do exist! And we should probably have an article titled "Breakfast drink", or, better yet, a section in the Breakfast article. What we do not need, since it serves no encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever, is a list of breakfast drinks, because the criteria for inclusion are so vague and arbitrary that the list is practically useless. (E.g. a TV character would imbibe some wild drink for breakfast and that concoction would then qualify.) Per WP:SALAT, we do not need topics [that] are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. It cannot be seriously argued that user knowledge is amplified by a list of breakfast drinks.
Lastly and equally importantly, per WP:CSC, we're supposed to draw up lists by factor[ing] in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists. It cannot be driven home more forcefully. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a branched article for a reason. Its meant to be a split from the original list to improve navigation and reduce the size of the original list. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I work in many various areas, and I'm not required to constantly entertain your ideas and entries on the page, at the previous AfD discussion, etc. You seem very eager to have the article deleted after you worked to expand it, which I find to be a bit curious and unusual. Furthermore, I don't plan on devoting much more time to this article at this point, unless it is retained, then perhaps, but I am not obligated to do so. I always felt that it was obvious that the list is for common breakfast drinks, but users herein have stated concerns about the list being indiscriminate, so it seems like common sense for my addition of "consisting of beverages that are commonly consumed at breakfast" (diff) to the article. Please also read WP:AVOIDYOU. North America1000 17:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be trimmed down to just the entries that are classified as breakfast drinks by reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, dear Newslinger, the sources you just cited too indicate the utter arbitrariness of the very category "breakfast drinks"! With such a wide-open tent what do we expect, what should a user expect, to learn exactly? A country without borders is by definition not a country.
The first paper's title is quite revealing: "ANS Responses and Facial Expressions Differentiate between the Taste of Commercial Breakfast Drinks." I would not mind at all a list of commercial breakfast drinks, ones that are labeled and sold as such by their producers. But a list of anything-goes-supposedly-breakfast-drinks, no, and thankfully this paper offers nothing in support of having such a grotesque list.
The second paper shows that "breakfast drinks" do exist, something on which everyone and their cereal-eating pj-clad mate Eric Stoltz can agree. We know they exist; we also know that practically every drink under the sun and the shade can be or has been labeled "breakfast."
And the third paper, similar in scope to the first, is about human reaction to officially and commercially labeled breakfast drinks, only they were tested in the blind, without labels. Who cares? This is one more source about commercial breakfast drinks. I've no quarrel with those.
We are still grounded. No lift off, still. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat myself. Read my argument above. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't like it, either. -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Whilst I myself !voted to delete the article, and remain of the opinion it should be deleted, I fear Tyw7's badgering of people who !vote to keep here and on the other breakfast related AfDs goes beyond reasonable engagement in discussion and is tending towards harassment. Tyw7 - please let people express their optinions! Dorsetonian (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Wilco. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:44, 31 July 2018 (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.
More