Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misleading food names

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 Delete. Consensus below is that the list is inherently subjective and derogatory, violating NPOV. If there is an appropriate list to be made for this sort of information, start with a modified concept, strict objective criteria, and a different title. Xoloz (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleading food names

Giant list of trivia, poor definition of "misleading", indiscriminate collection of information. Lots of liberty being taken with the word "misleading" here, not to mention that "misleading" is enormously subjective. Maybe we could rename it "List of foods that have names that imply they are other foods", but honestly, this is something I would expect to find in my Bathroom Reader. Wafulz (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no article on Misleading Food Names so this is a list based on a non notable topic. The term 'misleading' is also enormously subjective. Would require sourcing that almost definately doesn't exist. Not notable, directory. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment. If this page is kept, it needs to be re-done to have better inclusion criteria. This is patently riduculous: "Many cuisines have fanciful names for dishes, but no one eating them is deceived. This list is a greyer area."-Wafulz (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure trivia -- how misleading is misleading? I agree with Wafulz, this is purely ridiculous. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page was created on July 21, 2003, and has had hundreds of edits. Although that much longevity and popularity might otherwise be arguments for a keep, the history of the page indicates that it's been a battle between "silly" and "not as silly", with "humorless people" competing against "people who think they're being funny". Along the way, dumb comments have been added and excised about baby food, Mars bars, French fries, Gatorade, Buffalo wings, Hamburger Helper, Tic tacs, and chicken-fried steak. Along the way, everyone has felt the need to remind us that a "hot dog" has no canine ingredients. I agree with Wafulz that this looks like something out of a Bathroom Reader, only worse. It appears that many of the corrections have been made by people who are embarrassed by the continued existence of this page. I'd never seen it before it was nominated, but it looks like this page has always sucked. Pour it down the disposal. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guest9999. While interesting, this list is too subjective and is missing substantial evidence that this concept is even notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs) [reply]
Cleanup. The concept is quite clear. The page lists foods for which the name doesn't describe what could reasonably be expected. Beijing Duck not being duck and things like that. I don't see how that is subjective or not noteworthy. It does have a serious referencing issue, but that might be fixable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd agree with you on that Mgm, but when you click on the history of the page, you'll see what a problem there has been with other attempts to cleanup. This page has been a virtual urinal for vandals, jokesters, and people who meant well. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, far too POV to be encyclopaedic. RMHED (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a little work, and sourcing, but the subject is clearly notable. Once we start removing WP articles because people vandalize them, there will not be much content of a great many major popular figures, or colleges, or politicians. WP has ways to deal with vandalism. We could use them more energetically if we didnt have to defend the presence of the articles being vandalized instead. DGG (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you mind giving some sources to confirm that the concept of misleading food names is notable (since the article gives none)? Or is there another reason you're saying the topic is clearly notable, other than it just is? [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
I don't care much for "notability" within a list, but the article is basically a list of trivia with very vague inclusion criteria. The vandalism just happens to be an effect of how "misleading" can be deliberately misinterpreted.-Wafulz (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only an idiot would believe a hot dog is made from dog meat, so the term misleading fails to apply here. --Blanchardb (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the issues here is that this has been...well, wherever the heck it's been, in some unconnected world. I think that there could be an article here and one worth keeping, *if* we take it under our wing at Wikiproject Food and drink. A good article could indeed be developed on foods that have developed names that mislead based on misunderstanding of language, dialect, or out of facetious or humourous intent, with this list as the back up. I think it's mostly suffered from not being part of the wikiproject that should rightfully claim it, maintain it, and keep the cruft from building. --Thespian (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clean-up, add sources, possibly trim list, hope for better maintenance. Certainly wouldn't work as a category, so a list isn't so bad. And, yes, the term "hot dog" is misleading. If you've never heard of it before (or are a new speaker of English), you could possibly be mislead by the name. Anyway, I think with work, this could become a relatively decent article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually think the people who mean well are the most problematic; it's fairly easy to pick out the vandalism, but the ones who apparently seriously believe that a food's name is misleading because it physically resembles something, without being made of it (e.g. bear claw, gunpowder tea, etc.)--that's hard to combat. I'm not sure what purpose this article has served that justifies the amount of time spent trying to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetrixViridis (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Midnightdreary Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 04:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An NPOV violation at the very least. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:15, 24 November 2007 (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.