- 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 redirect to List of Thai Dishes. Actually a merge but since editorial judgement is required in deciding what to merge Inhave done the redirect and anyone can move the required content from the history Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Praramlongsong
- Praramlongsong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable food that the article admit is not even found now fails WP:GNG and blatantly violatates WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. No reliable sources that ever reported about this. The article was declined at AFC, then the author circumvent further review and copy pasted it to mainspace. — Ammarpad ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Try Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies the GNG, having received in-depth coverage in Silpa Wattanatham magazine, a major history publication.
[1] Shops specialising in the menu have been also been covered by Manager Online
[2] and All Magazine.
[3] Plenty of English-language coverage in above-linked book results. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you probably misread some of my comments. You argued in the original deletion request, "No reliable sources that ever reported about this." I provided examples of reliable sources in Thai as a counterargument. (I also provided English search terms for convenience, but that was never my main point.) You now seem to be arguing that the coverage by those reliable sources don't confer notability. I don't think that is in agreement with the WP:GNG. The comment below was made in response to the merge suggestion by power~enwiki, and reaffirms my opinion that the subject is notable, and deserves an article (per WP:TNT). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- PS There are probably already a thousand articles under
Category:Cuisine stubs. Stubs are not a bad thing, and have been an integral part of Wikipedia's content since the beginning. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is
Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Ammarpad (
talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely pointing out that "
Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is not about nobody is working on it, it is about whether it should be included at all in Wikipedia. Even if everybody is working on it they cannot create notability for it – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely pointing out that "
Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is
Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Ammarpad (
talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Alex TW 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Thai dishes. The references are enough to show the dish exists but there's very little beyond that. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- To make entirely clear, merging would have room for a two-sentence description in the existing table structure at List of Thai dishes; the lead content (and one reference that can be verified) would be merged, and the rest of the content deleted. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and the "Recipe" section should be removed in any case. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: To clarify, my Keep !vote was in response to the original argument that the subject fails the GNG, which I disputed above. I won't be opposed to merging or deleting without prejudice per
WP:TNT. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- To set record straight, this article was
rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion
was removed already unsourced, and the author
resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you
removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and
WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC
2 Nov,
16 Nov,
22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry, If my comments little upseted you. It is never intended that way, but just to lay record of the drafts, in it deletion discussion. I nominated this for deletion because it fails many criteria for encyclopedic inclusion, the same reason it was rightly declined at AFC. Yes, I agree with you AFC is voluntary process, but the way it is to you (long term editor/auto patrolled+many rights) is not the same to the newbie who created this articles (11 total edits/~30 days account). – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- To set record straight, this article was
rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion
was removed already unsourced, and the author
resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you
removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and
WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC
2 Nov,
16 Nov,
22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I agree content could be Merged to List of Thai dishes per power~enwiki. Operator873 CONNECT 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Operator873:. Please read the article and suggest what to be merged. Thanks. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had read the article and I suggest the lead portion could be merged to the List of Thai dishes. Save for the "Nowadays" sentence. Operator873 CONNECT 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Thai dishes. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- More specifically List of Thai dishes#Rice _dishes
- 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 redirect to List of Thai Dishes. Actually a merge but since editorial judgement is required in deciding what to merge Inhave done the redirect and anyone can move the required content from the history Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Praramlongsong
- Praramlongsong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable food that the article admit is not even found now fails WP:GNG and blatantly violatates WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. No reliable sources that ever reported about this. The article was declined at AFC, then the author circumvent further review and copy pasted it to mainspace. — Ammarpad ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Try Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies the GNG, having received in-depth coverage in Silpa Wattanatham magazine, a major history publication.
[1] Shops specialising in the menu have been also been covered by Manager Online
[2] and All Magazine.
[3] Plenty of English-language coverage in above-linked book results. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you probably misread some of my comments. You argued in the original deletion request, "No reliable sources that ever reported about this." I provided examples of reliable sources in Thai as a counterargument. (I also provided English search terms for convenience, but that was never my main point.) You now seem to be arguing that the coverage by those reliable sources don't confer notability. I don't think that is in agreement with the WP:GNG. The comment below was made in response to the merge suggestion by power~enwiki, and reaffirms my opinion that the subject is notable, and deserves an article (per WP:TNT). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- PS There are probably already a thousand articles under
Category:Cuisine stubs. Stubs are not a bad thing, and have been an integral part of Wikipedia's content since the beginning. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is
Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Ammarpad (
talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely pointing out that "
Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is not about nobody is working on it, it is about whether it should be included at all in Wikipedia. Even if everybody is working on it they cannot create notability for it – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely pointing out that "
Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is
Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Ammarpad (
talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Alex TW 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Thai dishes. The references are enough to show the dish exists but there's very little beyond that. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- To make entirely clear, merging would have room for a two-sentence description in the existing table structure at List of Thai dishes; the lead content (and one reference that can be verified) would be merged, and the rest of the content deleted. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and the "Recipe" section should be removed in any case. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: To clarify, my Keep !vote was in response to the original argument that the subject fails the GNG, which I disputed above. I won't be opposed to merging or deleting without prejudice per
WP:TNT. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- To set record straight, this article was
rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion
was removed already unsourced, and the author
resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you
removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and
WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC
2 Nov,
16 Nov,
22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry, If my comments little upseted you. It is never intended that way, but just to lay record of the drafts, in it deletion discussion. I nominated this for deletion because it fails many criteria for encyclopedic inclusion, the same reason it was rightly declined at AFC. Yes, I agree with you AFC is voluntary process, but the way it is to you (long term editor/auto patrolled+many rights) is not the same to the newbie who created this articles (11 total edits/~30 days account). – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- To set record straight, this article was
rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion
was removed already unsourced, and the author
resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you
removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and
WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC
2 Nov,
16 Nov,
22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I agree content could be Merged to List of Thai dishes per power~enwiki. Operator873 CONNECT 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Operator873:. Please read the article and suggest what to be merged. Thanks. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had read the article and I suggest the lead portion could be merged to the List of Thai dishes. Save for the "Nowadays" sentence. Operator873 CONNECT 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Thai dishes. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- More specifically List of Thai dishes#Rice _dishes
- 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.