Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broth

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. Clearly no support for deletion. No consensus whether they are two different subjects or not, so this should be a merger discussion on the respective talk pages. So Why 08:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broth[edit]

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

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

This is a content fork (WP:CFORK) of Stock (food). Both article are about exactly the same topic, namely, a cooking ingredient consisting of water in which savory ingredients are simmered. The (identical) section "Stock versus broth" in both articles explains that "many cooks and food writers use the terms broth and stock interchangeably." It also explains that while there are writers that do make a distinction between stock and broth, they do not agree on what that distinction is.

It follows, in my view, that there should be only one article about the topic of savory hot water, with an explanation about the varying differences in terminology used by some writers. I have attempted to write such an article, but the merger was reverted. It's therefore time for a community discussion. I'm using AfD instead of a proposed merger because AfD is faster and content-forking is a reason for deletion. Sandstein 06:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 06:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POINTy nom. Full disclosure, I'm the one who reverted the merger. But this is absurd. oknazevad (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. I'd be inclined to Merge the material from Broth that's about broths into Stock (food), and give Broth a hat-note indicating that many people use the term as a synonym of Stock, but retain the Broth article (initially as a stub), to handle things like Scotch Broth, which is not a stock. And incidentally, Scotch Broth isn't "the liquid in a soup which includes solid pieces of meat, fish, or vegetables", it is the soup. I can't site a source, only a million cans in supermarkets up and down the countries of England, Wales and Scotland. As it stands, the two articles are too similar to justify both in their current form. Elemimele (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does broth need to deal with Scotch Broth when Scotch Broth already has its own article at Scotch Broth … that doesn't link to broth? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - good point, Uncle G. Coming back to this, I really don't know what to do about it. Would it work better as some sort of disambiguation explanation that a broth can be a soup (pointing at Scotch Broth) or a Stock? Or would people complain that DABs need more than two items? I have no idea what's best. Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A tricky case of ENGVAR. Enough people (including me) think that they're different, and sufficiently so to justify two articles, but I'm sure that the people who think they're the same will object. User:Elemimele probably has the least awkward solution - and is right about soups and Scotch Broth. Ingratis (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as described in the article, broth and stock are two different but related things in some parts of the world. There are plenty of sources explaining the distinction between the two, for instance see page 4 of Mastering Stocks and Broths. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown 2014, p. 328 agrees that there's a distinction. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Brown, Amy Christine (2014). Understanding Food: Principles and Preparation (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781285954493.
- @SailingInABathTub, given that many writers think that there is no difference, and the others don't agree on what the difference is, why can the differences not be covered in a single article? Sandstein 05:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be useful if you could show some examples of the many writers who think there is no difference (there is one such source in the article), and those who cannot agree on what the difference is. Even the sources in the article, that say that they use the terms stock and broth interchangeably, acknowledge that there is a difference between the two. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isabella Beeton used "stock or broth" throughout Household Management switching around to "broth or stock" to apparently relieve the monotony. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The author also uses the terms singularly where appropriate. Stating that either can be used in some recipes does not mean that they believe them to be equivalent. Much like we have articles for Passata, Tomato paste, Tomato sauce, and Ketchup and you can put any of them on your pizza for a similar effect! SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dupree & Graubart 2012, p. 282 says that "In this book, the words stock and broth are interchangeable." and augments that point on page 287. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dupree, Nathalie; Graubart, Cynthia (2012). Mastering the Art of Southern Cooking. Gibbs Smith. ISBN 9781423623168.
        Yes, and the author also describes the technical difference between broth and stock on the same page. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To put it another way, what exactly is the substantial difference between the two topics that would warrant detailing this difference at article length, rather than mentioning the distinction in the one article for which we have material? I can't see it, and the articles don't make it clear either. Sandstein 16:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to have an article on the difference between the two. Much like Tomato paste and Tomato purée, stock and broth are both independently notable enough to have their own articles and the distinction between them can form a small part of each article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what is there to say about each of them that is not the same? Sandstein 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty clear when you stick to reliable sources (i.e. not sources that are confused about the distinction), that Broth or Bouillon is traditionally prepared primarily from meat and other ingredients and simmered for a short period of time, in a similar way to a light soup. Whereas traditional stock is made primarily by simmering raw or roasted bones and other ingredients, in water for an extended period of time. This should be made clearer in the Broth article and the sourcing could be improved, but this can be resolved through the normal editing process.SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that is in fact the difference - and I can't really make out any difference in this description - then what would be the point of writing two articles that are identical in all respects except for these two sentences? Sandstein 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you write two identical articles, for two different things? SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a single article under the title of Stock, broth, and bouillon. BD2412 T 23:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD2412. The differences in the two (three?) terminologies aren't enough to justify a separate page. Neither page goes into any depth that would be worth separating, but a combined article would have a higher quality than the sum of its parts. SWinxy (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article pretty much consists of comparing stock to broth which is then poorly transcluded into the stock article. Not bothered too much on the title (although stock is the common term where I am from) as hatnotes can solve most reader related issues. Don't like Stock, broth, and bouillon as that is unnecessarily awkward. Maybe Stock as it is the best developed of the two and essentially is completed if the transculsion is no longer transcluded. Aircorn (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - there is no case for deletion of the article as it passes the GNG and literally no one has voted delete. As for merging it, go discuss that at WP:PM; AFD is not the relevant forum. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case for deletion, namely, WP:CFORK: the article duplicates an existing article. No merger is required (although merging some small parts might be helpful). Sandstein 15:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be deleted as Broth is at the very least a likely search term so a redirect is the bare minimum. Aircorn (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't preclude deleting the content fork first. Sandstein 21:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we delete it just to recreate it as a redirect? And per WP:MAD we can't if we keep the comparisons. Aircorn (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly object to a merger, but I want to point out that there is in fact a policy-based reason for deletion, which is why I brought this up at AfD. Sandstein 07:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the broth article predates the stock article, so it's not a content fork of that article. If anything, it's the other way around. Mind you, the difference is only two months on articles that have both been around since 2004. Obviously the creators didn't consider them redundant. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creator(s) may not thought it was redundant, but what the creators believed was right isn't a convincing argument for why they should both be kept. It's tautological--it should be because it is. SWinxy (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree it would have been better proposed as a merge, AFDs often end in Merge closes. Aircorn (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus but no harm in a relist so doing so per request on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –While similar, they are also distinct enough. Stocks are typically used as a soup base. Also, stock concentrates are produced by various manufacturers for professional and consumer uses. Broth concentrates are also produced, but are less common. Also, stocks are typically cooked much longer compared to broths, particularly when used as a soup base, and tend to have a much stronger, condensed flavor. A unique distinction is that broth is often served to sick, infirm, elderly, patients recovering from surgery, and that sort of thing. Some examples of this from Google Books include this 1716 book, this 1917 book, this 1875 book, this 1845 book and this 1855 book, Many more sources are available that further verify this. Conversely, after searching around, the service of stock to the sick seems to be quite uncommon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of theses many sources less than a hundreds of years old? Aircorn (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2022 (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.