Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 26 March 2009

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 (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. 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)
• 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)

• Question what encyclopedic substance might such an article ever contain? Gigs (talk)

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)

• 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)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates