Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast foods

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Lots of opinions here, which I'll summarize as: The keep camp is arguing that this clearly meets WP:LISTN, while the delete camp counters by saying this clearly does not meet WP:LISTN. I don't see any particularly killer arguments on either side, so I'm largely going with head count. Many people have pointed out that this could use better sourcing and curation. Anyway, is there really anybody who hasn't eaten cold pizza for breakfast? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast foods

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of breakfast foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "List of breakfast foods" is yet another food & beverage related list with same or similar indefinite reach, scoping, and definition problems as
- "List of foods by calorie" (Deleted by AfD)
- "List of breakfast drinks" (Keept by 1'st AfD, likely Deletes by 2'nd AfD)
Note: Such (e.g. the above 3) kind of anything-goes lists stand in contrast to a list like "List of breakfast cereals", which does have tight scope: "breakfast cereals" is a commonly accepted classification of food products, and the actually foods under said classification, are all fairly exclusively eaten at breakfast.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, Northamerica1000, Rhododendrites, Ritchie333, Hijiri88, Spshu, SilkTork, Newslinger, AmericanAir88, Roxy the dog, Ajf773, JohnBlackburne, Dorsetonian, Shadowowl, The Gnome, Tyw7, Lyndaship, Bearian, Reywas92, Alpha3031, Power~enwiki, El cid, el campeador, and XOR'easter:
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Merge the two articles, then delete just one. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of breakfast items? 🤣 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds excellent. We can also finally take care of these deletions. @Northamerica1000: You like that idea? AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was sarcastic... --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Roxy the dog: Why are you adding more entries to the article after opining for it to be deleted (diff)? You joke, saying "Ha"...this is a list of foods, etc. above, and then after that started adding various foods to the list (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). You also didn't add any sources to verify that these are common breakfast foods. Comes across that you could be potentially adding content to the article to correspond with your opinions in this AfD discussion. (E.g. It's just a list of any foods, so I'll add more indiscriminate entries to further support my stance for deletion). North America1000 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: Having yesterdays pizza leftovers for breakfast is actually not really majorly uncommon - especially true, if the fridge is empty. And what else is in the fridge: Well, here's the "this is breakfast"-guy again. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a phrase on my user page which may assist your thinking: "We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia. The difference being: we select, organise, and explain." We may wander in a disorganised world where nothing appears to makes sense. However, reference books and encyclopedias help to frame the world so we can better understand it. There are certain foods which are commonly eaten at breakfast, and these vary around the world. Some people may not know that, which is why it is useful to have a list of such foods. The intention of the list to to help people understand what foods are typically eaten for breakfast. It is up to each of us to make what we will of the opportunity offered by such information, but deleting information because someone doesn't understand the concept is not the right approach. If someone fails to understand the purpose or jurisdiction of a list, then what we need to do is to make it clearer to them. Removing the list is not the right approach as it doesn't inform the ignorant, only makes the ignorance worse. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Breakfast: A History
  2. The English Breakfast: The Biography of a National Meal
  3. The Breakfast Bible
  4. The Breakfast Book
  5. The International Breakfast Book
  6. Around the World on a Breakfast Tray
  7. Handbook for the Breakfast Table
  8. A Study of Industrial Workers' Breakfasts and Lunch Boxes in Ithaca
Do we need an indiscriminate list of breakfast foods? Or just about any foods eaten for breakfast? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should not be deleted because, an editor think because some other editor INDISCRIMINATELY edits (or some editor demand INDISCRIMINATE edits) this article thus the article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See such concepts as "undo", edit the article and need RELIABLE SOURCE. Spshu (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT 1, 2, 6, 11 and possibly 10, considering that there are unreferenced things on this list. You can basically add all foods on this list. Example : There are people who eat hamburgers for breakfast[1], and by this, it should be added to this list. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Lists_of_foods -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/two-percent-of-americans-eat-burgers-for-breakfast-2012-11
  • Comment – WP:LISTCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. Regarding the notion of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, the Lists of foods article is essentially a lists of lists and main topics article; due to the high number of foods in existence, the Lists of foods article is limited to being organized categorically, based upon the main subcategories within the Foods category page, along with information about primary topics and list article links. It's unclear how this article could be considered as a redundant content fork, because very few of the entries in the list of breakfast foods article are listed on the list page. North America1000 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDIR is the policy and more or less have the same wording. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and curated merge to Breakfast. I don't see a simple bulleted list like this as being a particularly useful article or a notable topic as a list; it is currently quite indiscriminate (shrimp? tongue? Sure people around the world can eat them in the morning, but that doesn't make them breakfast foods by themselves) and as shown the the books linked above, hard to pare down especially with a global viewpoint. There are so many redundancies like variations of eggs and regional pastries all listed separately, making it this rather listcrufty and pointless, but the main article could definitely use some improvement with more examples in places and possibly consolidation by similar regions rather than a section for every country. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but seriously rework. I'm not impressed by any of the breakfast-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia* but this subject - unlike List of breakfast drinks - can, I believe, be made into something encyclopaedic. Breakfast is a distinct meal - when restaurants offer an "all day breakfast menu" there is a clear and understood set of items on offer, different from the remaining fare. Therefore, it is reasonable to have an article that covers that. But a British (cooked) breakfast is quite different from a European (mostly uncooked) breakfast is quite different from an American breakfast, etc. The article could (and, IMO, should) discuss that and list examples of items in distinct sets. A purely alphabetical list of a zillion items all mixed up, which we currently have, is useless and indiscriminate and should be reworked - but I don't think it is necessary to delete and start again; this can be fixed by editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Yes, I know - WP:SOFIXIT Dorsetonian (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I described as the way forward essentially already is at the breakfast article. So (a) I have reversed my decision and (b) I have subtly changed the earlier comment to cite the breakfast-related articles. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful argument -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an article: It's a purely navigational list and falls under 1, 4 and 7 of WP:NOTDIR, and it's far too broad — Adding any content at all would make the page too long. It's navigational purpose can be better served by creating a category, in which case this page can be redirected to it. I really don't see the point in having a list of article summaries.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 05:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking !vote on review of WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN and arguments of Northamerica1000, I am changing to a very weak keep, as I still think that the list has significant problems wrt. inclusion criteria, but they are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Because of its broadness, I would like to oppose merge of the list of breakfast cereals, and suggest that if in the future, the list be split by nationality, culture, or some other logical division, since seeing as "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.", the list may become untenably large, and shorter lists may better serve the purpose of navigation.— Alpha3031 (t·c) 08:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is yet another attempt at a list with boundaries more open than 1889 Oklahoma. If, at least, we had something along the lines of foods officially, commercially designated for breakfast, then we'd have something, perhaps. Now, an expert writes an article about how your golf putting can improve by eating owl eyes over easy in the morning and, hey presto, it makes the list. This is not what lists are here for, sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline also says "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.... ". Also Wikipedia is not a directory. 'l"Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y' or 'restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y.'" --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Nope, that's not it at all; only at AfD for two days as of this post. Here's a wider perspective: 70,457 page views in the last ninety days. It's clearly a functional article as per WP:LISTPURP. Not seeing how its deletion will actually improve Wikipedia; deletion in this case will simply reduce well-read resources that readers utilize on a large scale. North America1000 11:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's scope is too wide and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also see WP:NOTDIR "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." Common selection criteria also states "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper."
And pray tell what's the criteria to be listed? It seems just about any food item, with a source that says it's eaten for breakfast, can be listed. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:LISTN, according to sources provided by Andrew Davidson and Northamerica1000. The value this article adds over a simple category is the sourcing. Having the references on the same page as the list is helpful for readers and editors who want to validate the list's entries. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a reasonable list, with reasonable standards, on an important topic. Most of the entries are at least somewhat notable. I do think that some of our individual articles on breakfast foods are a little inappropriate--and that's why we ought to keep the list, because it provides somewhere to redirect them to. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of the list is a bit too wide and just about any food can be added as long as they have a source. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mark Viking, Newslinger, DGG and Northamerica1000. I eat some pretty random things for my first meal of the day, but even I can recognize that there is a notion of foods traditionally or conventionally eaten as breakfast (and having them at other times of day is considered an event of sorts). I don't see any problems with this list that can't be handled through the regular course of editing: including only bluelinks, requiring reliable sources, etc. If it grows too big, it can be split up by culture/nationality. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everything above. A notable list of foods that are proven to be eaten for breakfast. This gives a worldwide view on breakfast culture. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No part of this list discusses culture or a worldwide view whatsoever, it's everything indiscriminately lumped together. There is nothing that cannot be covered in breakfast. Reywas92Talk 23:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor already voted once above. So striking through the keep vote and changing it to a comment. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 05:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD does not stand or fall on minor specific problems with the article in its current format; if the result is Keep, those can be fixed by editing. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the problem lies with the fact that the list itself is indiscriminate. So you can add just about any food to the list as long as it's eaten for breakfast. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I agree the list is utterly indiscriminate. But the point you made about a specific issue doesn't seem to have any bearing on that. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a comment since the references that "Keep" group uses to prove notability for inclusion is also flawed. I can't go through every reference in the list but that reference alone raises doubt over the validity of the others. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:09, 30 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_foods&oldid=859159150"