Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soul food items

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul food items

DELETE. Inherently ambiguous and unsourced list. Fails for that reason. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I had to look twice because you were the nom JB. This is a very discriminate and encyclopedic list. It can most certainly be sourced, and dispute worked out by a preponderance of reliable evidence. I think whether cites should included in the list or confirmation via the wikilinked articles on the foods themselves is really an editing issue. I can't see how the encyclopedia would be more useful, complete, or improved in any way by deleting this list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate topics for stand-alone lists. The topic isn't inherently ambiguous—sources can be used to resolve any ambiguities (and looking over the edit history, I don't see evidence of any significant editorial disputes). Yes, the sourcing should be improved, but reliable sources are readily available, so that isn't a justification for deletion. BRMo (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are they readily available? I will respectfully withdraw this nomination if this can be adequately and appropriately sourced, even a little. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't a soul food recipe book be considered a reliable source? Google-books lists dozens of them, and I'd imagine that most public libraries in the United States would carry at least one or two. BRMo (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria certainly is ambigous. Who decides what is or is not "soul food"? It's not like that is something quantitative. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's original research to classify these as soul food items, pending the lack of any secondary sources that make the claim and I feel that a list of _____ foods is also indiscriminate Corpx (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep manageable. Major topic, on which there are quite a number of sources. But they need to be used. DGG (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has numerous sources that can be used. Gune (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cuisine of the Southern United States as both seem to be verifiable, citable, and germane to other articles (Soul Food itself would be incomplete without containing or linking to such a list)(else Keep) Jesse (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid list that follows the format of cuisine related articles. In the grouping of food and drink areas "cuisine" refers to the cultural context that food and drink plays in the society it refers. Cuisine articles contain such data as the cultural history of the foods eaten in the society, etiquette, beliefs and other information beyond the dishes themselves. "Dishes", or in this case "items", refer to the meals themselves, including raw and or unprepared foods such as fruit, beverages and other such items.

In Food and Drink articles the individual dishes are just a single aspect of the XXX cuisine and are usually treated as a list that is referred to in the main XXX cuisine article. Individual dishes are then linked in the list. A good example of this is the Korean cuisine article and its child lists List of Korean dishes and List of Korean beverages.--Jeremy (blah blah) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that a list of Korean dishes is much less ambiguous than this list. I am disappointed with some of the sources here as well, I would like to see sources that discuss why an item is considered Soul food, not just blindly point to a random cook book and say "See! Its Soul Food!" But what disappoints me the most is that people are CONTINUING TO ADD UNSOURCED INFORMATION TO THIS ARTICLE full aware of our policy prohibiting such actions. JBsupreme (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable topic for which there are hundreds of good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (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.