| Revision as of 23:40, 26 March 2009 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →À la carte: Definitely keep← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:24, 20 May 2022 edit undoBruce1ee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers267,204 editsm fixed lint errors – obsolete HTML tags | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| ⚫ | ===]=== | ||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|I}} | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep''' per ]. NAC. ] (]) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ===]=== | ||
| :{{la|À la carte}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|À la carte}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| This page is just a dictionary definition. |
This page is just a dictionary definition. It seems to clearly fall under ]. According to the talk page it has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Seems like a clear candidate for deletion.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 26 March 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition. ] (]) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | * '''Speedy keep''' - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition. ] (]) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Response''' Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point. |
** '''Response''' Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point. "The phrase and its usage" is the definition of a definition. What distinction are you attempting to make here? ] (]) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See ]. ] (]) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | :::What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See ]. ] (]) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be ''about'' the subject term, not just ''use'' the subject term). |
* '''Delete''' Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be ''about'' the subject term, not just ''use'' the subject term). Already in ], just link to wiktionary from disambig page instead. ] (]) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::A mere mention isn't enough, but the article doesn't have to be about the subject either. There is a middle road. The article can be about something else and still make verifiable statements about the subject that go beyond trivial mentions. - ]|] 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - as notable as ] and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book . Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). ] (]) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. ]] 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' - as notable as ] and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book . Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). ] (]) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --] (]) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --] (]) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. |
* '''Keep'''. AfD evaluates whether Misplaced Pages should have an article with this title. It doesn't evaluate the current content. I agree the current content's a dicdef, but I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article called a la carte. — ] ]/] 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :* '''Question''' what encyclopedic substance might such an article ever contain? ] (]) | :* '''Question''' what encyclopedic substance might such an article ever contain? ] (]) | ||
| :::I should imagine people from ] would be best placed to answer that. |
:::I should imagine people from ] would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — ] ]/] 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thanks, I just delsorted it too. ] (]) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ::::Thanks, I just delsorted it too. ] (]) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - why is this even nominated?! <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' - why is this even nominated?! <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * | * | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': |
* <small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small> — ] (]) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| ⚫ | * An obvious '''keep'''- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of ]s that a '''merge''' to the parent article might be an option. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | * '''Definitely keep''' because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--] 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' and expand. notable cuisine-related subject. ] (]) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong keep''' - see ]. ] (]) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Transwiki''' and redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see anywhere this article can reasonably go beyond the definition of the term. I see a number of people arguing that the article has greater potential, but these arguments have not taken the form of additional sources or content in the article that would not be at home in wiktionary. If the article survives the AfD in its current form, and is not substantially expanded, it's bound to be re-nominated. --] (]) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' Google returns 7,910,000 for it, so it is a common phrase. I never heard of it before, but a lot of people apparently use it. ] 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' There is a difference between dictionary definitions and stub articles. This one I would classify as a stub article. The phrase is used a lot and needs to be documented. ''']''' ] 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' or '''Transwiki''' to French Wikitonary. See User:Tavix, where there is a diffrence upon dicitonary vs stub. ] (]) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Snow keep.''' Oodles of possibilities to make this much more than a dictdef. ] 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep'''. I'd suggest that this could be merged with ] and redirected without loss of information; some time ago I did some cleanup on that page. But this is not the place. - ] (]) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Definitely keep.''' Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. ] (]) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
| ⚫ | *An obvious '''keep'''- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of ]s that a '''merge''' to the parent article might be an option. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *'''Definitely keep''' because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--] 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:24, 20 May 2022
- 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
À la carte
- À la carte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This page is just a dictionary definition. It seems to clearly fall under things Misplaced Pages is Not. According to the talk page it has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Seems like a clear candidate for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 26 March 2009
- Speedy keep - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition. Jd027 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Response Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your point. "The phrase and its usage" is the definition of a definition. What distinction are you attempting to make here? Locke9k (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See the difference here. Jd027 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be about the subject term, not just use the subject term). Already in Wiktionary, just link to wiktionary from disambig page instead. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- A mere mention isn't enough, but the article doesn't have to be about the subject either. There is a middle road. The article can be about something else and still make verifiable statements about the subject that go beyond trivial mentions. - Mgm| 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. WilyD 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - as notable as Blue-plate special and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book A Neutral Corner. Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). TNplinko (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. AfD evaluates whether Misplaced Pages should have an article with this title. It doesn't evaluate the current content. I agree the current content's a dicdef, but I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article called a la carte. — S Marshall /Cont 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- I should imagine people from the relevant WikiProject would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — S Marshall /Cont 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just delsorted it too. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I should imagine people from the relevant WikiProject would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — S Marshall /Cont 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - why is this even nominated?! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- An obvious keep- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of restaurants that a merge to the parent article might be an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely keep because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--Caspian blue 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. notable cuisine-related subject. Badagnani (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Transwiki and redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see anywhere this article can reasonably go beyond the definition of the term. I see a number of people arguing that the article has greater potential, but these arguments have not taken the form of additional sources or content in the article that would not be at home in wiktionary. If the article survives the AfD in its current form, and is not substantially expanded, it's bound to be re-nominated. --Shunpiker (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Google returns 7,910,000 for it, so it is a common phrase. I never heard of it before, but a lot of people apparently use it. Dream Focus 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is a difference between dictionary definitions and stub articles. This one I would classify as a stub article. The phrase is used a lot and needs to be documented. Tavix (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or Transwiki to French Wikitonary. See User:Tavix, where there is a diffrence upon dicitonary vs stub. Junk Police (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Snow keep. Oodles of possibilities to make this much more than a dictdef. -- Banjeboi 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd suggest that this could be merged with menu and redirected without loss of information; some time ago I did some cleanup on that page. But this is not the place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely keep. Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (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.