Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourmet

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. This does not rule out merging or redirection, should consensus later determine that this is more appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet

I believe this article falls under what wikipedia is not, as in: a dictionary. It's an article on a word. I don't see any reason why it should stay when they can already look up the meaning of the word in the wikitionary, or any other dictionary for that matter. — Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Vast subject. Tens to hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, likely. It is a distinct thing (cultural phenomenon, cuisine subject, history of food, etc), not just a word.Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just reorganized the article into sections, which should help us figure out what's there and what isn't. It's really a sorry article. Probably only two or three sentences of encyclopedic material, and even those need work and aren't sourced. Maybe the whole thing should be stubbed down. But even two sentences is the start of an article. The principle is that if the subject is notable and there's anything at all salvageable the right course is to build, not delete. Wikidemo (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to do this to demonstrate the obvious but as a partial response to the baffling claims that "gourmet" is no more than a dictionary term or that no encyclopedic article can or will be created for it, I've found a few sources describing the gourmet food movement and gourmet concept / social trend in America. Certainly, each of these subjects (gourmet food sector, gourmet entertainment, gourmet tourism, gourmet person/lifestyle, gourmet products) could be its own article, and perhaps they are there already under different terms. However, as of now this is a good place to centralize the content of all things gourmet, which is truly a different thing than gastronomy and the other subjects being mentioned. Wikidemo (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept itself is notable and encyclopedic, especially as a cultural phenomenon (like virtuoso, a good model for this article). The article as it stands is more than mere definition. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many encyclopedia article have at their core a definition of a word; from time to time someone wants one deleted. The idea of a Gourmet is a piece of cultural history; if that does not come through, then the article is insufficiently clear and emphatic. --Wetman (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ... ... ... ... This probably has more potential as an article than any of the other accusations of DICDEF that show up here. The idea of gourmet is a notable cultural idea that has been around for like, ever. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't fall under WP:DICDEF, as it's more than just a simple definition. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails the tests of WP:DICDEF#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles which are policy. The existence of the separate articles: gourmet, gourmand, foodie, epicure, fooding and aristology shows that the authors have not the slightest clue about the policy of writing about topics rather than words. The topic here is Gastronomy or Food and we don't need all these fancy dictionary entries for different ways of describing people who like it, i.e. just about everyone. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, gastronomy is too broad, let alone food. But I would support a general treatment under gourmet for some of these, particularly epicure. I think foodie is sufficiently differentiated as an amateur culture of fans of food, cooking, and surrounding areas to warrant its own article. I'm unsure about where to merge fooding, but it and aristology seem to be closely related. The point is that while one can easily categorize many things together, that does not make them the same. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further (Which has brought me to the interesting meta-conclusion that I now understand what mergist means in a visceral way. Until now I thought mergism was just a variety of or compromise between inclusionism and deletionism ....) --Dhartung | Talk 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to pigeonhole me is incorrect. I prefer separate articles on topics such as fictional characters, for example. In this case, what bothers me is that we have a policy - our strongest form of guidance - and yet few editors seem to understand or apply it. I have suggested that the policy be deprecated (see centralised discussion) but others cling to it. It is absurd as this article is a blatant case of failing this policy. It's all about the word - its etymology and usage - rather than about the topic - the enjoyment and appreciation of fine food. A telling sign is that the only source is a dictionary. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand DICDEF perfectly. I just don't think it applies here, as the article can easily be more than a definition (and even in for the wrong type of word, at that); the subject as an idea can have hundreds, if not thousands, of sources. Thus, I think it should be kept, reworked and improved, rather than deleted and scrubbed with contributions lost forever. More focus on improving, less on deleting. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any understanding. Looking at the article in its supposedly improved state what we have is firstly a series of definitions of the ways in which the word is used. Just like a dictionary. Then we have a history of the word or etymology, just like a dictionary. Then we have a section on similar terms - just like a thesaurus. The article never manages to break out from its focus on the word qua word. And its only sources are things like Dictionnaire de Trévoux. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, yes. But since wikis change, I'm not interested in any one version of the article. I'm interested in the subject, and the subject is about as encyclopedic as subjects come, and should be kept as such. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject would still be covered by the plethora of other articles on the same topic. I found another one - see tasting. It seems best to cut back to the roots and focus on core topics like Gastronomy and Restaurant before spinning off an article to define every word that is used in these fields. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me be the first to say, De gustibus non disputandum est :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think perhaps gourmand, foodie, epicure, fooding and aristology should all be covered in Gourmet. Colonel Warden is right that currently all these articles just say that they basically mean gourmet and give dictionary definition (except epicure which redirects to an ancient greek named epicurius. However I do think a great article could be written on Gourmets and being a Gourmet as a topic rather than just as a word (which is what the article currently is). Think WP:HEY and it's a keeper. Earthdirt (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. In it's current state it probably should be deleted, but I suspect there are several quality sources out there that could flesh this out. Renee (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After looking at the article due to Colonel Warden's !vote, it seems to treat gourmet as a noun rather than an adjective; it should probably be rewritten to be in more in line with gourmet as an idea and not as a kind of person. But, still, it's a cultural idea that has been around for a while and I don't imagine it'd be that hard to source something about that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet quality standards. The majority of the material in this article is opinion and cannot be verified by the singe source provided. Unless someone knowledgeable on the topic wishes to rewrite the article, I suggest it be deleted. jcreek201 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep it ~~should be~~ is more appropriate on wictionary, but due to the high amount of uses of the term, an article here is appropriate. More surces should be added Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DICDEF. It's just a list of definitions. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/speedy keep. This nomination seems almost as preposterous as Pear above. What Wikidemo said, tens of thousands of sources, very very notable. The page could use a bit of cleanup and expansion though. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —S.dedalus (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Yes, the article could use considerable expansion to take into account some of he many other sources. But its a decent start. the effort spent here in trying to remove could much more usefully have been spent in trying to improve it. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially an expanded WP:DICDEF. The current article is of extremely poor quality; for those who claim it can be improved, well, I have to say: prove it. If an encyclopaedic, well-written article can be made on this subject, then it should stay; but as little more than a dictionary definition at the moment, this one should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not working on a 5-day deadline cycle. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - vast subject, with lots of interesting history. Regardless of what the article looks like at present, there's certainly huge potential. Could perhaps be merged into gastronomy though. FlagSteward (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (I mark this instead of delete, as I favor {{wi}} for newbies that don't know how wikipedia works) It's a definition, and I don't see how an encyclopedic article could be written around this. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
Keep per WP:HEY, lots of potential here, but certainly needs work. There is a lot more to write about being a gourmet.Earthdirt (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article sucks, but the subject is definitely notable. The energy spent on bringing it to AFD could've been used to improve the article. Herunar (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHonestly I'm not that good at writing articles, which is why I usually stick to small tasks like spelling errors, AfDs, CSD tagging, tagging, etc. I couldn't have helped improve this article if I tried, it just isn't something I'm good at. This is in response to all the comments refering to how the article could have been improved instead of been nominated for AfD.

If the article is notable and can be improved, I hope it does get improved instead of just sit in its current state, and if it continues to sit in its current state for say... maybe 2-3 weeks after this AfD is closed, assuming it is kept and not deleted, then I shall nom it again. If no care is taken in expanding the subject, all we are left with is another dictionary entry. I honestly hope this article improved at some point, because I do not wish this to turn into a: article takes after a dictorial entry, article nom'd for AfD, AfD results in keep, article stays the same, article nom'd for AfD.. You get the point.— Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gastronomy - I can imagine that an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but I would not expect it to be; Britannica doesn't seem to have done so, and none of the supporters of this article has made any attempt during the debate to do so. So let's get rid of this nice definition and turn our efforts to real articles. Ma^t_chups 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.