Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arroz con pollo

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. @pple complain 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arroz con pollo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted when its name was Chicken and Rice, but it was recreated and split into two different articles, this one and 53rd and 6th which is also nominated for deletion. The recreated article features similar problems from the original one, which include poor sourcing, notability, the sources provided cannot sustain notability, full of POV, with informal text sounding like a recipe, and it violates WP:NOT Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also thousand of articles of rice dishes recipes as shown in Template:Rice dishes, these articles should all receive a mass nominee with the same argument risen as above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is not just chicken and rice; it is a staple food of Latin American cuisine, with dozens of varieties. Before nominating this article, one needs to do a Google search at the very least. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet see any evidence that this satisfies the general notability guideline. I looked for significant coverage in reliable sources [1] [2] [3] but couldn't find it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: last I checked, Wikipedia was not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE database of dishes lacking any WP:SECONDARY sourcing as to their cultural significance (Google Books turns up numerous recipes but little or no scholarly information). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs more information but the dish is clearly notable. Even I, a North American, have heard of it. BigJim707 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a major dish. Too many search results to sort through, and most news results are behind paywalls. Thousands of cookbooks and magazines mention the recipe though. Dream Focus 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lots of hits" is a terrible reason to keep to begin with, and coupling that with "I didn't even look" starts to push up on being disruptive. Please review the community's expectations on participation in these discussions. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did in fact look, and found things I clicked on behind paywalls. Dream Focus 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And "thousands of cookbooks" (and recipes in magazines) are hardly WP:SECONDARY sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, actually, it is. A food is notable if its covered in such things. How else would you judge it? Dream Focus 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ROFLMAO! A recipe for creating a dish is very clearly a WP:PRIMARY source -- as you can't be any more "directly involved" than describing the steps to actually create the dish. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Chicken and Rice article that was deleted in 2006 was not about the food, but a place that sold food. Totally unrelated article. Dream Focus 05:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A dish of major cultural importance, maybe not up to the level of rice and beans, but still with a significant impact. That being said, if further expansion or real work cannot be done, a merge to one of the "Cuisine of" articles wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major Latin American dish, which has obtained more than significant coverage in reliable sources including, but not limited to: [4] which is an article featuring the dish as a primary dish of Cuba in the New York Times on May 25, 1941. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It now has book references to the effect that it's a staple of Latin American cuisine - these referenced assertions from reliable sources are enough to show notability. (And it originated in Spain, so it can't be comfortably merged into any particular national cuisine article or even into Latin American cuisine). Novickas (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable because it is about a common dish eaten in many cultures and countries.Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a staple" is not an inclusion criterion. On the current sources:
- Cooking in America, 1840-1945 - This is a one paragraph introduction to the recipe, and does not even suggest it's notable.
- The Carolina Rice Kitchen: The African Connection - Just says that it's descended from pilua. Uses the words "most notably" but this does not amount to either a significant piece or a claim to notability.
- EyeMinded: Living and Writing Contemporary Art - Has one line about this, and just says "it's a staple."
- The complete idiot's guide to Latino history and culture - "No preview available." Unless someone has a hard copy and confirm that this is a significant piece, we can't go by sources we can't evaluate.
- Food and Wine - Even if we accepted that this counted as a reliable source, the whole non-recipe content is "This traditional Spanish favorite will work well with any smooth, full-flavored red, such as a Merlot or Zinfandel from California or a Rioja from Spain."
- New York Times - Again, we cannot evaluate the source, and "The most common dish of the island is "arroz con pollo," fried chicken and cooked rice mixed together and spiced with yellow saffron, green peas and Spanish red peppers." is not sufficient material to write an article from the neutral point of view.

Unless more and better sources can be brought to the table, this article does not appear to meet the requirement of having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If it's as important as everyone is saying, why is it so hard to find sources that aren't recipes? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Aaron B's last point about recipe inclusion; this is SOP for food writing; it's done in Larousse Gastronomique. Serious cookbooks often follow this pattern - an entry has a short intro summarizing the history and importance of the dish followed by a recipe. This is how Elisabeth Lambert Ortiz's entry on A con P is written. [5] Novickas (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of the 4,720 news results to sort through and the 7,820 book results. Dream Focus 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A very major dish, particularly in Latin America. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Elisabeth Lambert Ortiz book linked to above by Noleander starts out with (rough translation) "It would be impossible to write a book of Latin American cuisine without including any recipe for arroz con pollo, one of the favorite dishes of the continent." Joyce Lafay says (in Cuba Cocina: The Tantalizing World Of Cuban Cooking-Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow) that arroz con pollo is "the most famous dish in the Cuban repertoire" [6] Frommer's Puerto Rico says "Arroz con pollo (chicken with rice) is the most popular chicken dish on the island..."[7] Secrets of Colombian Cooking says "Arroz con Pollo is one of our staples; l think we had it every Saturday for lunch or dinner."[8] Argentina cooks! says "What Spanish-speaking country does not include Arroz con Pollo in its culinary repertoire?"[9] Many entries are brief, but clearly this is a major dish. Cloveapple (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. I think that there may be a misunderstanding. The earlier nomination was for an article on a food stand in Manhattan called "Chicken and Rice," not on the chicken and rice dish. That can be seen by examining the earlier AfD. The food stand article, retitled "53rd and Sixth," was just deleted.[10] ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (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.