- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
List of breakfast drinks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of breakfast drinks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The concept of "Breakfast Drinks" is itself dubious at best, and the content is so crappy that it's beyond salvation (barring complete deletion and rewriting from scratch). DexterPointy ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:LISTN as the concept appears in sources such as The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew: By not commenting on the article's content, then: Are you implicitly agreeing on the initial content evaluation (i.e. "so crappy that it's beyond salvation"), hence suggesting to keep the list, but blank it, so to achieve immediate improvement? -- DexterPointy ( talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. I agree with DexterPointy that there is room for improvment, but sadly there are a great many other articles requiring attention. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comments & Questions :
- Does "the Colonel" happen to be the nickname of the goldfish hovering over Wikipedia? (I'm obviously referring to the omnipresent goldfish being responsible for demonstrating topics' compliance with Wikipedia policy.)
- And then looking into content:
- First sentence: "This is a list of notable breakfast drinks."
Notability of list-items, is always determined on a per-list basis. This list makes no attempt on defining what any relevant criterion for notability of items might be.
So it's not overly surprising to see Champagne being on the list (and Champagne is far from the weirdest item on the list), but it is rather amusing in that the item description include linkage to Champagne breakfast, wherein the lead says "It is a new concept in some countries and is not typical of the role of a breakfast.". - So, Champagne is notable thanks to being atypical. - Second sentence: "A drink is a type of liquid which is consumed."
One glaring missed item on the list is olive oil. It's much less typical than champagne at breakfast, and, by logic extension, therefore much more notable. - If you really believe it to be a nice article of high quality, then it's kind of embarrassing that olive oil isn't there at all, when it clearly should be listed at, or near, the very top.
- Does "the Colonel" happen to be the nickname of the goldfish hovering over Wikipedia? (I'm obviously referring to the omnipresent goldfish being responsible for demonstrating topics' compliance with Wikipedia policy.)
- --
DexterPointy (
talk)
22:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Colonel is Andrew D, one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors. As to your other points, while your various leaps of logic are enjoyable to read, and not without virtuoso qualities, I don't find them entirely convincing I'm afraid. I don't think it would be fair to the closing admin to get into an extended debate on these matters. If however the article survives AfD and you were to raise your concerns on the article's talk page, I'd say there's a reasonable chance myself or another WikiProject Breakfast member would be happy to discuss. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 23:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
FeydHuxtable: I don't see how a viable definition of "notable breakfast drink" can be created, and thus no realistic path to ever making this list into something which satisfy WP's quest for quality. I can think of no reasonable definition of "notable breakfast drink", except definitions requiring data, which either does not exist or involves a substantial element of processing (which unfortunately violates WP's prohibition against original research).
Somewhat unrelated, based on the attitude of your verbiage this far, I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:OWN, and in particular: "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." -- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)- Wikipedians generally consider something as 'noteable' if it receives coverage in reliable sources. (Often an even tighter definition is used as given in WP:GNG, though as per WP:LISTN, list items don't have to be individually noteable, so we don't have to apply the strict sense of the word.) Essentially, "notable breakfast drink" would seem to mean a drink that gets coverage in WP:RS as a beverage consumed at breakfast. I'd say this is already the working definition that's been used by the editors who built up the article. One could argue the definition is imperfect, and I'd agree, but I don't see it as a good use of time to refine it further right now. Maybe this would be something to re-visit if ever the list is expanded so much it becomes difficult to navigate. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comments & Questions :
- Keep – Passes WP:LISTN, and the content is sourced in the article, although more sources for verification are needed in the Description section of the table. I don't view the content as "crappy" at all, which is simply a weasel word. Some sources demonstrating WP:LISTN as being met include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America 1000 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:LISTN actually says:
- >>There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, ...<<
- Furthermore, from WP:NOTDIR, there's
- >>...Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. ... Wikipedia articles are not:
- 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).<<
- -- DexterPointy ( talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
List of breakfast drinks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of breakfast drinks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The concept of "Breakfast Drinks" is itself dubious at best, and the content is so crappy that it's beyond salvation (barring complete deletion and rewriting from scratch). DexterPointy ( talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:LISTN as the concept appears in sources such as The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrew: By not commenting on the article's content, then: Are you implicitly agreeing on the initial content evaluation (i.e. "so crappy that it's beyond salvation"), hence suggesting to keep the list, but blank it, so to achieve immediate improvement? -- DexterPointy ( talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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. I agree with DexterPointy that there is room for improvment, but sadly there are a great many other articles requiring attention. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comments & Questions :
- Does "the Colonel" happen to be the nickname of the goldfish hovering over Wikipedia? (I'm obviously referring to the omnipresent goldfish being responsible for demonstrating topics' compliance with Wikipedia policy.)
- And then looking into content:
- First sentence: "This is a list of notable breakfast drinks."
Notability of list-items, is always determined on a per-list basis. This list makes no attempt on defining what any relevant criterion for notability of items might be.
So it's not overly surprising to see Champagne being on the list (and Champagne is far from the weirdest item on the list), but it is rather amusing in that the item description include linkage to Champagne breakfast, wherein the lead says "It is a new concept in some countries and is not typical of the role of a breakfast.". - So, Champagne is notable thanks to being atypical. - Second sentence: "A drink is a type of liquid which is consumed."
One glaring missed item on the list is olive oil. It's much less typical than champagne at breakfast, and, by logic extension, therefore much more notable. - If you really believe it to be a nice article of high quality, then it's kind of embarrassing that olive oil isn't there at all, when it clearly should be listed at, or near, the very top.
- Does "the Colonel" happen to be the nickname of the goldfish hovering over Wikipedia? (I'm obviously referring to the omnipresent goldfish being responsible for demonstrating topics' compliance with Wikipedia policy.)
- --
DexterPointy (
talk)
22:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- The Colonel is Andrew D, one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors. As to your other points, while your various leaps of logic are enjoyable to read, and not without virtuoso qualities, I don't find them entirely convincing I'm afraid. I don't think it would be fair to the closing admin to get into an extended debate on these matters. If however the article survives AfD and you were to raise your concerns on the article's talk page, I'd say there's a reasonable chance myself or another WikiProject Breakfast member would be happy to discuss. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 23:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
FeydHuxtable: I don't see how a viable definition of "notable breakfast drink" can be created, and thus no realistic path to ever making this list into something which satisfy WP's quest for quality. I can think of no reasonable definition of "notable breakfast drink", except definitions requiring data, which either does not exist or involves a substantial element of processing (which unfortunately violates WP's prohibition against original research).
Somewhat unrelated, based on the attitude of your verbiage this far, I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:OWN, and in particular: "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." -- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)- Wikipedians generally consider something as 'noteable' if it receives coverage in reliable sources. (Often an even tighter definition is used as given in WP:GNG, though as per WP:LISTN, list items don't have to be individually noteable, so we don't have to apply the strict sense of the word.) Essentially, "notable breakfast drink" would seem to mean a drink that gets coverage in WP:RS as a beverage consumed at breakfast. I'd say this is already the working definition that's been used by the editors who built up the article. One could argue the definition is imperfect, and I'd agree, but I don't see it as a good use of time to refine it further right now. Maybe this would be something to re-visit if ever the list is expanded so much it becomes difficult to navigate. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comments & Questions :
- Keep – Passes WP:LISTN, and the content is sourced in the article, although more sources for verification are needed in the Description section of the table. I don't view the content as "crappy" at all, which is simply a weasel word. Some sources demonstrating WP:LISTN as being met include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America 1000 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:LISTN actually says:
- >>There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, ...<<
- Furthermore, from WP:NOTDIR, there's
- >>...Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. ... Wikipedia articles are not:
- 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).<<
- -- DexterPointy ( talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (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.