Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Túrós csusza

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. --Core desat 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Túrós csusza

Not notable, not cited, and not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#GUIDE JFlav 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This article was proposed for deletion less than a day after its creation by a new user. This violates Don't bite the newcomers. Colonel Warden 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be ridiculous. The nominator hasn't shown any hostility towards the creator. Where does it say in that guideline that articles created by new editors are immune from AFD? You must be new here, hundreds of articles by new editors are nominated for deletion every week. Masaruemoto 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has any effort been made to contact the author of this new article? Has any effort been made, apart from mine, to improve the article? It seems not - we just have a knee-jerk and discourteous attempt to 'score a point' by shooting down the good faith work of a new editor. Please read Don't bite the newcomers too re your "you must be new here" comment. Colonel Warden 08:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did, in fact, contact the author when I put the article up for deletion. However, after readin your comment I decided to put more effort into it. Yesterday I wrote a longer, more conversational, comprehensive overview of why I put Túrós csusza up for deletion and posted it on the author's talk page. Neither of these contacts provoked a response. Indeed, the author hasn't edited any pages since the day he or she created the page in question according to the contribution page. It seems that, in your effort to decry "shooting down the good faith work of a new editor", you do not assume good faith, because a good faith effort has been made to contact and inform the author. JFlav 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for clarifying your efforts to contact the original author which do indeed seem quite diligent. Colonel Warden 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from making me slightly nauseous just imagining such a dish, Wikipedia is not, as mentioned, a guide, or indiscriminate collection of information, such as recipes. I'm sure there are many sites devoted to collecting recipes that would be pleased as punch to have this recipe listed, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ariel♥Gold :D Tiddly-Tom 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some quick googling indicates that this dish is a notable element in Hungarian cuisine which shows up repeatedly in travel guides and restaurant reviews. It therefore merits its article just like fish and chips, mooncakes, Twinkies, kimchi, etc. It is exactly the sort of article which one would expect to find in a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I have made an editing pass through the article to add links and a reference. That's all that's needed - some improvements. Colonel Warden 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be notable in Hungary, I think the big difference between this dish, and the items you use as examples, is the world-wide use in multiple countries of those items that have their own articles, whereas this item is very likely not as wide-sweeping in its availability. I think you can get "Fish and Chips" in just about any country in the world, (called by different names, of course), and Twinkies are, of course, quite notable, as they've been written about, used in film, media, etc., Kimchi has the same notability, it is a worldwide dish. While I'd personally never heard of mooncakes, reading through the article on them demonstrates their wide-spread presence in many countries. However, I think this particular dish is not in the same category as those others. Note that I don't deny that the dish exists, I simply did not personally think this is widely known dish worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. I just looked...definitions of various foods on Wiktionary...perhaps this could be moved there? Smashville 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would not be appropriate because these are Hungarian words, not English. They do not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. Colonel Warden
  - I believe you're confused. A word doesn't have to be in the Oxford English Dictionary to be on Wiktionary. Smashville 16:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki, unless some genuine reliable sources are added to establish notability. I've removed the travel agent's link from the article, I know it was intended to be a reference, but it isn't a reliable source and too spammy to be included here. Masaruemoto 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The source seeemd quite reliable to me but, since you have deleted it, I have added three more substantial references. It wasn't hard. Colonel Warden 08:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, a commercial site designed to sell holidays isn't a reliable source for asserting notability for a type of food. The three sources you added are not substantial, they merely mention Túrós csusza in passing. See WP:N. Masaruemoto 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are 'more substantial' and adequate to indicate notability. Bear in mind that, as this dish seems to be local to Hungary, coverage of it will mainly be in Hungarian language sources. I am not familiar with that language and so unable to search these. And bear in mind, that this encyclopaedia covers the world, not just the Anglo-American part and its own parochial cuisine such as macaroni cheese. Colonel Warden 08:20, 21 October 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.