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 delete and redirect to Paella#In popular culture. Thereby satisfying, I hope, both the "delete" opinions in the discussion's first half, and the "redirect" opinions in the second.  Sandstein  08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow pan of food[edit]

Shallow pan of food (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)

This is a nonsensical creation, none of these dishes are known as "shallow pan of food", nor is it a plausible search term for any such cookware. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As far as I can tell, the phrase "shallow pan of food" only seems to refer, by that name, to an emoji. I can find no evidence that this is a phrase or concept commonly used in culinary discussion. While there are certainly some recipes that call for cooking food in a "shallow pan", trying to link these all into a made-up neologism is pure WP:SYNTH. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment and nominator's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep until Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥘 is resolved as explicitly explained at Talk:Shallow pan of food when I deprodded this (I'm wondering if Tavix has even bothered reading this). After that concludes I think it should be kept because the name of the emoji means that this is a useful search term for the set of items that are shallow pans of food and shallow food pans. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Stuffed flatbread, which is also a descriptive set of things which are stuffed flatbreads even if they are not known by that term, created by consensus following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥙. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I read it but disagreed with the logic. The RfD is unrelated to this index. If it's not a valid index now, it won't magically become one once the RfD is closed (or vice versa). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unrelated except for it being created because of it, and there being at least one good faith recommendation to retarget it here. If you disagree with that then you should be commenting to that effect at the RfD. If the RfD had been closed with consensus against targetting this or using it as a hatnote target then the deletion nomination would be fine, but bypassing the ongoing discussion and not mentioning it here or even acknowledging that it was used as the basis for deprodding the article, makes me uncertain how much good faith is being extended? Is there a reason you have chosen to completely ignore the existing discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the creation of this index was misguided and should be deleted for the reasons I stated above. As this is the proper forum for the deletion of set indices, I fail to see the problem here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not disputing that this is the correct venue to nominate set indicies for deletion. I'm arguing that pages being discussed as possible targets for a redirect, at an RfD discussion or elsewhere, should not be nominated for deletion until that discussion concludes. Indeed, unless the page is actively harmful (i.e. subject to speedy deletion as an attack page or copyvio) then I struggle to see how such a nomination can truly be in good faith. I note that you have still not expressed your opinion about this target in the RfD (where you should have done first). Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am in no way obligated to participate further in the aforementioned RfD. I have stated my opinion and have nothing further to add. If there's a page that I think meets the criteria for deletion, the sooner the problematic page is taken care of, the better. Your accusation of bad faith is laughable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. This isn't RfD-related, it's an article and as such, notability matters. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for how this is inextricably linked to the ongoing RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !Vote stands. See WP:NEOLOGISM Exemplo347 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neither a notable neologism nor a valid disambiguation page. As for the Rfd issue, well, if someone wants to keep as a redirect to Paella#In_popular_culture, fine. I wouldn't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. older ≠ wiser 10:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete should have been speedied as a nonsense page. i can't believe people are creating emoji redirects. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I originally voted to delete both of those Emoji Redirects. When I created the Article in question here, I did so as a compromise after my original support for deleting those Emoji-based Redirects was overruled by subsequent consensus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until RFD is closed - "shallow pan of food" is not a made up phrase or description, it's the Unicode definition of the character in question. The nominator's argument also would apply to stuffed flatbread - I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but that was created as a result of consensus at RfD. Let's see what the RFD says. If the consensus is not to SIA-ify, this page shouldn't be brought back into mainspace, that's for sure. If the consensus is to SIA-ify, perhaps this page should be moved to 🥘. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that my argument would apply to stuffed flatbread. It's a pretty common phrase that applies to multiple styles of flatbread, and the SIA emphasizes that. "Shallow pan of food", on the other hand, is not even a plausible search term. I would oppose draftifying this as it's obvious from the current discussion at the RfD and the current discussion here that this page is not going to be accepted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't wait for the RfD to conclude before taking action here. Nonsense articles based on a neologism shouldn't be retained based on a discussion about redirects. The standards are totally different. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum. The former Article is now a Redirect, based on a proposal here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6#.F0.9F.A5.98. Not only did I create this once-Article-now-Redirect, but also, I don't consider this action unilateral when 2 others have proposed the same Redirect for the Unicode character that the phrase officially describes. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this, as it counts as "blanking" - which should not be done while an Article for Deletion discussion is taking place. Please have patience. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of this debate before the original RFD closed is an act of severe impatience in itself. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the related RfD for the emoji has been closed as "refine to Paella#In popular culture". – Uanfala (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and this is coming from the Creator of said Article. Now that a refined target is available, I'm going to recreate it as a Redirect after the deletion anyway. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mysterious El Willstro: it's disruptive to recreate something against consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a Redirect when the relevant consensus concerns an Article specifically. If you really want to press me at WP:Redirects for discussion later, I will make the argument that an official Unicode description is thereby bound to the character, and that both make sense as Redirects to the same Target. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this to be a redirect, why have you stated "Delete"? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't much Article History to bother preserving. As far as I'm concerned, it makes no difference whether the Redirect is an Edit or a new Page Creation. Nevertheless, I'll change it keep form. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the result here is "redirect", recreating it as a redirect would still be disruptive as there'd be consensus against having it as a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the unicode character (and thence to the target agreed by the RfD discussion). Like it or not (clearly some don't) "shallow pan of food" is the name of a unicode character and a legitimate search term. It occurs to me - and this is a discussion for another time, somewhere else - that WP isn't very good or consistent at ḥandling searches of/for emojis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paella#In popular culture. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paella#In popular culture per above, where the term is explained. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:04, 27 March 2017 (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.