Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misleadingly-named foods

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. Hey, the article failed to mention that Po' boys aren't made out of "boys". Entertaining article, it's a damn shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleadingly-named foods[edit]

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

Listcruft mostly composed of original research. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really should delete this since we have no way to know if people are really misled by the names of these dishes. I do admire the ernestness of the editors who contributed. Borock (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget pigs in a blanket, which neither includes a blanket nor pigs (not whole ones, at least). Denny's "Moons Over My Hammy" breakfast combo also does not contain moons. Delete as indiscriminate OR. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were named properly I think that an encyclopedic article COULD be salvaged here, but it would have to be moved and heavily edited. German Chocolate Cake is not German (it was invented in Michigan) the Chinese buffet classic General Tso's Chicken has no relation to General Tso and in fact was invented in the US. It's a **COMMON** phenomenon especially in American English where a food is given a national attribution that is entirely false ((french toast is not from France, Belgium waffles are not from Belgium, and so on. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune (an action not really related to prunes) of original research. Book references can be found for the "misleadingness" of some of the entries, such as "Welsh rabbit" (no rabbit in it, and no rare bits either") and "Bombay duck (Fish, not duck) can be found in books such as [1]. No purely O.R. entries should be left in the article. "Foods with misleading names" is a notable concept, with significant coverage in a number of books, and those examples which are attested by reliable sources belong in this list. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Correcting misinformation is a prime function of references. Edison (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the term used in the book you linked to is "gastronomic red herring". If that is a notable term/concept, then maybe an article could be written about it, but it would have to be more than a dicdef with examples. And even if the concept merited an article, that in and of itself would not guarantee that a standalone list of examples was warranted or workable. And at best, you'd still have to start from scratch because this list is not about that concept in any reasonable manner. The current list does not define or provide a reasonable threshold for what is "misleading", nor does it provide a context in which they are misleading (has anyone ever seen ants climbing a tree on a menu and thought the restaurant was literally offering ants climbing a tree?), nor does it distinguish between names that were adopted intentionally to evoke something else and names that the uninformed may merely assume meant one thing when they were named to mean another (e.g., caesar salad), nor does it distinguish between terms that are not misleading in their language of origin but were adopted into English and coincidentally evoke unrelated things. It lumps together foods named after unrelated geographic locations; foods named after unrelated nationalities or cultures; foods named after different foods or unincluded ingredients; foods named after non-food items; and foods named after something that merely happens to be, or suggests, an unrelated geographic or food term (e.g., hamburgers were named after Hamburg, not ham). So basically, you're suggesting that a rather different article or list could be created, rather than making a good case that this list could be salvaged. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Mishmash of random trivia, herded together for disparate reasons based on one editor's conception of what is "misleading". Bombay duck I can see as an actual "misleading" name, but I have never known, heard of, or can imagine a person who thought hamburger might possibly be made with ham. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is basically WP:OR as there is no references at all. I doubt anyone would be misled by the name "hot dog".—Chris!_c/t 18:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ambiguous inclusion criteria. "Misleading" according to whom? Carrite (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We could address the OR, but it would remain an unencyclopedic mishmash with no clear inclusion rules. Do we include (from List of breakfast cereals), Batman Cereal (which has no bats or men), Breakfast with Barbie (which does not include pieces of plastic), Cabbage Patch Kids (which includes no cabbage), Cat in the Hat Cereal (contains neither), Donkey Kong crunch (guess what?), Gremlins, Pebbles (I hope not), all the way to Wild Animal Crunch. Now that I think of it, every food named after a place or person is "misleading" because it is not named after a different place or person. For example, the Bing cherry is not named after Bing Crosby and Oysters Rockefeller is not named after Nelson. Don't get me going on a turkey club sandwich. Okay, gotta go–I'm hungry! Ma^t_chups 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is original research and the topic of the list is highly subjective. The other contributors have made very good points on why its should not be kept and I agree with them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:15, 30 March 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.