Talk:Fried meatballs

Fried meatballs

This is a recipe that was listed for deletion in December, and then forgotten (I think the original listing got sent to a subpage and forgotten). There is no context provided in the recipe providing why it is encyclopedic, and the recipe has been transwikied to Wikibooks (b:Cookbook:Fried Meatballs), and it's page history preserved in the Wikibooks module's talk page. Gentgeen 06:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not encyclopedic. Could have been speedy deleted, I think. ~leif ☺ _HELO 07:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I propose a the following update to case 7 of the Candidates for speedy deletion so that this can be an unambiguous speedy: "~~Foreign language a~~Articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project which have ~~as a result of having~~ been copied and pasted into Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system." When case 7 was written, I don't think Wikibooks, et al existed. Further comments should probably go to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#case 7. Rossami 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This article was in plain english, so I just do not see how the article about foreign language articles apply here. SweetLittleFluffyThing
Delete. Transwiki'd. — Gwalla | Talk 19:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and list on cleanup. anthony (see warning) 20:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 21:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is a question of principle :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. We're not a bloody cookbook. Wholeheartedly disagree with Anthere/SweetFluffyThing --Improv 16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You also support deleting the redirect ??? What harm does a redirect cause ? You do not even see it, it is not even counted as an article ? What is the justification of such hainous comment ? I replace the article by a redirect and this is not even acceptable ? What do you call a consensual decision then ? I think I made a huge move in your direction. You could at least acknowledge that. SweetLittleFluffyThing (wondering if she should just not restore the article as before if even a redirect is not acceptable. I am shocked you even support breaking links to other projects, deeply shocked).
Keep. This is a reasonable topic. Intrigue 18:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

This is just a bad idea to plain delete pages of this type. If people come to Wikipedia, and search for meatball, they must find the information. Even if you (wrongly imho) decided to move the information to wikibooks, then DELETE the article, then it may be that the information is saved, but it is unusable, because the link to the recipee disapeared. You might have preserved the information, but an information which can't be found is just useless.

Now, if you succeed to prove me that wikibooks is as well known as Wikipedia, and that the reader who do not find the information on wikipedia will have the idea to go and look in wikibooks to find the missing information, then I will not complain of deletionist behavior. But ihmo, you will not succeed to do so, hence link to information must be preserved.

To do so, either keep the article, or at least save the information in another (probably more generalist) article. This is what I did in including the fried meatball information (and link to recipee) in the meatball article. Again, information hidden and impossible to find is just worthless. Do not hide information. Classifying does not make sense if it results in information being hidden. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is an interesting point of view. However, it flies in the face of the consensus of the discussions and of the process for m:Transwiki. May I recommend that you copy your concerns there and/or at the Village Pump? Your issues seem to transcend a single VfD vote. Rossami

I put them there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump#transwiki

People just do not care at all. They know that if they go on just doing the same thing than before without making any comment on new proposals, they can pretend no one question the policy they support.

There was never a clear consensus with regards to deleting recipees, each time I mentionned the topic, some people supported the same view than I, but the recipees were deleted nevertheless. It is the domain of who is the bolder.

I would like to know your opinion. Do you still support deleting links and making access to information disappear ?

SweetLittleFluffyThing

Several months ago, there was a discussion page for deletion of recipee. I remember quite well that many people gave their opinion on it, and there opinion was that indeed recipees could belong to the encyclopedia. The list of people agreeing to this was highly relevant. I can not find it back. Could someone help me here ?

I hope that it was not deleted, otherwise I would undelete this page, as it was the place were opinion of non deletionnists was reported.

SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This is not a recipe and does not even include a recipe. It is a not-very-good article about a category of food that is common in many cultures and many regional and ethnic American cuisines. The topic is as legitimate as hamburger or sausage or kielbasa or haggis or menudo or scrapple, the inclusion of all of which I strongly support. As far as I know, none of those have been questioned. This is a less important topic, and not nearly as good an article, but there's nothing at all unencyclopedic about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found the links !

List of recipes

Talk:List of recipes/Delete

Most agree they could be moved (see Jimbo, Elian and Ec opinion though), but most also consider content should be moved (not deleted) and links should be preserved.