Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A banned sock's creation of this AFD notwithstanding, the consensus here is clearly for the preservation of an article on Hawaiian cuisine that was native to the islands prior to the influence of European contact and Asian immigration (which this article currently plans to do). The naming situation, as well as other content specific issues, can be handled in a more appropriate location than this forum. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native cuisine of Hawaii[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Native cuisine of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject has been repeatedly redirected to the article Cuisine of Hawaii. The actual title should be Native cuisine of Hawaii, but that page is currently a redirect. Can we please get community input on how best to handle the subject. There is also a debate about whether it should only cover Native Hawaiian cuisine before the arrival of Captain Cook and exclude all aspects of Native Hawaiian cuisine as related to adaptations to colonization, immigration, the development of plate lunches featuring Hawaiian dishes, Hawaii regional cuisine, Sam Choy and aspects of contemporary "Native Hawaiian cuisine". Thanks for suggestions and input. Please allow this discussion to run the full 7 days so we can get as much input as possible into what has been a contentious dispute. A recent AfD was closed as speedy keep, but the article was moved to my userspace and Native Hawaiian cuisine redirected to Cuisine of Hawaii. Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted the current article is in a gutted condition and the fuller version can be seen here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that this is the first time in nearly five years of editing and commenting on thousands of AfDs that I have participated in two on the same article in a single day. And I might be the editor responsible for the "gutted condition" of the article, since I set out to try to improve it, and my first step was to remove the content that didn't have to do with the food supply and cuisine of the native Hawaiians in the 1200 years or so before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. To me, that is the logical point of demarcation between this article which in my view should be about the cuisine of an isolated, homogeneous culture and another article about the cuisine of a multicultural society engaged in world trade. Clearly, this topic is related to Cuisine of Hawaii, and is a fork, but I think a justified one. The historical shift I've described is, to me, the only one that justifies having two broad articles about Hawaiian cuisine. Otherwise, let's just have one, arranged roughly in chronological order. But if we are to have two articles, then discussion of beef, salmon, rice and all the other foods imported by cultures other than the Polynesian settlers belongs instead in Cuisine of Hawaii. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Draftify into the draft namespace or userfy into a sandbox until the article is ready for mainspace. The article under discussion is a duplicate, redundant fork of cuisine of Hawaii. The majority of the content was copied wholesale, including the citations, from a section about pre-contact Hawaii. If that material grows too large, it should be split out into a new article. The sources use "Native cuisine" to specifically refer to Hawaiian food before 1778, a Polynesian, pre-contact diet. Contrary to what the nominator has claimed, there is no debate on this, and more importantly, the nominator has no sources supporting such a debate. If we were to write a new article about contemporary "Native Hawaiian cuisine" today, how would it differ from the cuisine of Hawaii article? The nominator proposes a POV fork that isn't supported by the sources currently in use. This is why I strongly recommend moving this fork into draft or user space for the nominator to work on. Perhaps if he does the research, he will find actual sources on the topic, which would be great for Wikipedia. The cuisine of Hawaii article follows the sources which describes five different food epochs, from the antecedents of 1) Ancient Hawaiian food, to the arrival of 2) European, American, missionary, and whaler cuisine, to the introduction of 3) ethnic food by plantation immigrants, to the development of 4) local food by regional communities on different islands, to the creation of 5) Hawaii Regional Cuisine by chefs and restaurateurs. One of these epochs refers solely to "Native Hawaiian cuisine", whereas the four subsequent eras combine into different types of cuisine. As for what "contemporary" Native Hawaiians eat, they will of course, draw upon 1, but are more likely to eat regularly from 2, 3, and 4, making the general "cuisine of Hawaii" parent article more relevant in the contemporary era. As a Hawaii resident and Wikipedian who writes about Hawaii, I would very much like for there to be more content about Native Hawaiians. But we have to actually read the sources and write from them; we can't make stuff up and copy and paste from one article to the next simply because we have a strong POV. The sources are clear that the "Native cuisine of Hawaii" refers to the ancient, traditional diet of pre-contact Hawaiians. To write about what Native Hawaiians eat today, one would first have to find those sources. Since the current article does not accurately reflect the scope and focus that is intended, it should not remain in mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have changed my "draftify or userfy" objection to a "delete" up above after participating in this new discussion with the nominator. As I originally suspected several days ago (although I had no evidence until now), the nominator has confused the culinary and food history of Hawaii with a topic on nutrition and obesity. As I informed the nominator, this is a worthy and valid topic, and should be discussed both in cuisine of Hawaii and in a new article yet to be created in the category of Indigenous health. However, this article under discussion is not that article. I would ask that the user request the assistance of projects related to indigenous people, nutrition and medicine to complete this task. They are welcome to work on such an article in draft space, a sandbox, or even in mainspace, but this is not that article. The first thing the nominator has to do is find reliable sources. The nominator has already identified a list of potential sources to use in a non-RS that cites them. But again, the nominator has to do the hard work to research, read, and write the article. Of course, I have no objection to a nutrition or health section in the "Cuisine of Hawaii" article if the nominator is interested in adding it. I really think we need one. However, the nominator must make the effort to find the reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't get me wrong, I think that there should probably be two articles, one of contemporary cuisine, and one of traditional (pre-contact is the correct term I think, but I don't know for sure). The problem is this article is a complete disaster as-is, and I don't think it is salvageable. The article is entirely copy-and-paste from other sources within Wikipedia (without the proper attribution), and if you doubt this, look at the citations. For example Laudan 1996, p. 216., Nenes 2007, p. 478., where do they reference to? Why the reference to the entries at the bottom of in Cuisine of Hawaii, naturally. Or there is this duplication detector report. In fact this article could almost be speedy deleted under A10 ( Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic), and is was on the borderline of G7 (Author requests deletion), in fact yesterday when the nominator nominated his own article for deletion the first time, it probably was. If there is to be an article on the traditional, pre-contact cuisine of Hawaii, that is great, but this is the wrong way to go about it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think bots usually take care of that citaion issue but there has been so much gamesmanship by Viriditas moving this article around and redirecting it (including even after it was speedily kept in an admin closure by you) that the bots got lost. That's one of the reasons that the kinds of disruptions engaged in by Viriditas should have brought to a stop by admin intervention long ago. I also think it's funny that you said I created the article, then I pointed out to you that I restored it from a redirect and expanded it, and now you say I created and want it deleted. Suggesting something you know is not true is completely dishonest. I believe lying is a clear policy violation? Please strike your comments. I believe the article should be kept, obviously, and that it should cover Native Hawaiian cuisine comprehensively. Because the ridiculous disruption by Viriditas has been never ending I thought it best to get very clear community consensus on the issue so we can move forward. Your clouding of the issues, distortions, and contradictory statements are sad. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bots cannot fix references that are not there. And I say that you created the article because you are the first author on the page. See. I know you say you are not up on the intricacies of Wikipedia, but I am sure you have figured out how to check the history of an article, since you have been editing under this account since 2011. So no, I will not strike my comments. As for disruption, pot, please meet kettle. As for my inappropriate close, I have told you the venue you are free to report my outlandish behavour at. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong that bots cannot fix references. It would not surprise me if the article history got messed up in all the disruptive moves and redirects that Viriditas has engaged in. He and I have both told you that I restored the article from beneath a redirect and expanded it. If you want to engage in some kind of weird denialism I don't know how I can help you, but your contributions and administrative actions so far have been totally unhelpful and wacky. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be confused about the article history. There have been so many moves, redirects, afds and other nonsense I'm having trouble keeping track of it all. I apologize. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would not have happened if you had not copied and forked an article on the cuisine of Hawaii in an attempt to write about the health and nutrition of Native Hawaiians, which I'm sure, everyone here supports. What you need to understand is that the more you are open about what you are trying to do and the more you discuss it, the more support you will receive. In any case, bots cannot add references from one article to another. And none of the material you've added is relevant to a discussion about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition. As I said above, it's about Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, and by trying to shoehorn it into another toipc, you're engaging in synthesis and original research. Find the sources about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition and use those to write an article. Don't copy material from other articles about topics that have nothing to do with the one you are writing about. The sources must cover the subject you wish to write about. Please read WP:SYN for more guidance. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the question of attribution, there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which calls for "at least" mention in an edit summary if/when text has been copied from another Wikipedia article. Whatever happened here could/should be remedied by adding to the attribution in the article somehow, and/or giving credit on the Talk page. I am not sure how exactly this is to be done, but I am sure there must be a way that attribution (for other Wikipedia article authors) can be provided properly after the fact.
I sympathize with Candleabracadabra that authorship in the article was in fact confused by the article being moved and renamed and recreated by a copy-paste, and so on, and IMHO the way this worked out is not C's fault. Reasonable editors should be able to agree that there is a reasonable topic here, and then to work together to get the article and its attribution into shape to be a reasonable treatment. It is also okay for an article to be started and left imperfect, but with notes at the Talk page about what needs to be done before the article can be deemed "finished" or "Good"-worthy. --doncram 19:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "confusion" about the authorship. Candleabracadabra didn't write anything. BorgQueen, myself and several other editors did the research, read the books, papers, and articles, and wrote the content. Candleabracadabra forked and copyied the cuisine of Hawaii article for no reason other than to add image galleries against the MOS when he was repeatedly reverted in the original article. Then he made up all sorts of excuses claiming he was interested in Native Hawaiian food, their health and nutrition, etc. And while those are all valid topics, we already have a Culture of Hawaii article. It's a stub waiting to be expanded. And to see how we write such articles and talk about native cuisine, look at a similar article like Culture of Tonga. Candleabracadabra did not "start" any new topic, nor has he directly responded to concerns expressed about this copy and paste job. That's why I moved it into draft space and user space. From the very beginning, this was a disruptive attempt to add image galleries that were removed from the parent article, not to start a new article. So, I think your sympathy is misplaced here. You should be sympathizing with all of the editors who have had to waste their time trying to cleanup this mess. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see what the issue is here. I don't agree with Kelapstick on a few points. First, this article does not meet the standards for a G7 deletion even if the author requested it because they no longer are the only significant contributor. "Pre-contact" is only the correct term if that is the point in which you want to hinge the timeline of the article. I don't know if that is the best sectioning or not, but it is merely where the other article wishes to make their distinction. As for whether or not the article could be speedy deleted as duplicating another topic, I believe at this point the two articles demonstrate enough of a difference to exists independently of each other, but links to either artice from the other seems appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is one of content forking and original research. Per this discussion the user is attempting to write about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition. However, the sources the user has copied from the cuisine of Hawaii article do not discuss that topic. That content is specifically about Ancient Hawaiian food in the pre-contact era. Some other sources the user has added are about different types of cuisine in Hawaii. There are sources on and offline about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition, however, and Wikipedia covers such topics under the categories of "race and health" and "Indigenous health". But the user must find reliable sources about the topic to write such an article. He cannot just copy and paste content and sources from other articles about different subjects and create a new subject. There is a competency issue here. For example, I asked the user to find a single reliable source for me to look at so I could help. The user responded with a user-generated blog posting. Now, I understand that the user is trying, but they need to either work in draft space or in a sandbox until they figure out how to edit. The worst part is that they haven't read any of the source material they keep copying over to this new article. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes Mark, I agree that as it is now it is not eligible for G7, however when it was originally nominated for deletion (for the first time) here he was the only substantial editor to the article. That was my mistake in my comment. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mark, you wrote, "I believe at this point the two articles demonstrate enough of a difference to exists independently of each other". How is that possible when the material was copy and pasted without any significant changes? What is different about the two articles? While I agree that we could have a separate article on Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, there is no evidence that the nominator intends to expand that topic. What he is trying to do is write about the health and nutrition of Native Hawaiians, but using content from the cuisine of Hawaii article that is about Ancient Hawaii. I just don't see any difference at this point, nor has the nominator added any reliable sources like he has been asked to do. All he did was copy the sources and content. So, we have a duplicate, redundant fork for no purpose. Why does this separate article continue to exist? Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my opinion as an uninvolved editor but, this is how I see the two subjects without even looking at the articles. There is the basic "Cuisine of Hawaii that would be your restaurant foods. Everything from the Hawaiian themed Tiki Bars and restaurants of the 40s, 50s 60s and 70s to the newer fusion foods and high end artistic offerings of the newer trends. I think the history should reflect that. In this article, Native cuisine of Hawaii I imaging it would be about poi and its base could well be from the first article but expand on even the poi section. Look...I am new to much of this so I don't want to come across "holier than thou" but, there is so much to just pois that i don't think is covered. Like the fact of how a traditional native Hawaiian plot of land would be used to grow and raise their own food. Tarro patches and fish ponds were actively encouraged King Kamehameha I by tending his own taro patch and fish ponds. So, just from my own look I think there is room for massive expansion and that this article could serve to, at the very least, expand on the real native preferences and I don't feel any shame in including spam. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, Mark. The problem is, our food and cuisine articles are not about restaurant foods. Please take a moment to look at our GA/FA articles on this subject (which I admit are in terrible shape as the Food and drink project does not seem to work on them that much). Culinary and food history articles focus on the history of the cuisines, notable dishes, ingredients, preparation, and variations. Sometimes they discuss restaurants, but rarely. In terms of the cuisine of Hawaii, it is a very small part of the topic, and appears to have been added without sources recently. In the sources about the cuisine of Hawaii that I've read, restaurants played a small role in popularizing local dishes, but this is more of an illustration of a topic rather than its core. "Hawaiian themed Tiki bars and restaurants" don't seem to have much to do with the topic, and HRC fusion cuisine only became popular in the 1990s. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Native cuisine of Hawaii" and the sources don't use it. That's an artificial name that the nominator chose when the redirect prevented him from using his preferred title, "Native Hawaiian cuisine". If you take a look at our culture articles, you'll find that they usually discus the cuisine as a subtopic. When the topic is too large, it gets split out. We have a stub on Culture of Hawaii waiting to be expanded, but the nominator isn't the least bit interested. For comparison, look at the structure of articles like Culture of Tonga, Culture of Samoa, and Oceanic cuisine. I think you'll find that the cuisine of Hawaii article is accurate and topical per the reliable sources and best practice on Wikipedia. "Native Hawaiian cuisine" refers to Polynesian and Oceanian cuisine that was brought to Hawaii in the pre-contact period before 1778. After that time, the numbers of Native Hawaiians dwindled, and their people were forced into a diaspora. This was especially true after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the 1890s and its acquisition as a territory and later, as a state. There are now less than 20% of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii. The question then becomes, which culture and cuisine are you talking about? You mention "Spam" up above, but that is most assuredly not classified as Native Hawaiian cuisine, and was only introduced during WWII meat rationing. Even the nominator has acknowledged that these "foreign" food items are killing Native Hawaiians because of their poor nutritional value. So, for me at least, you are talking about cuisine of Hawaii, not Native Hawaiian cuisine, also known as "Ancient Hawaiian cuisine", "Polynesian cuisine", or "Oceanian cuisine". I think we do need expansion on the "Culture of Hawaii" article, and it can discuss some of these things there. But if we are talking about traditional or ancient Hawaiian culture prior to first contact, that's another subject. I can recommend some good sources if you are interested. There is also literature published by the Native Hawaiian sovereignty and resistance movements that can point you in the right direction. Right now, however, this "Native cuisine of Hawaii" article is sourced to books and articles about pre-contact Hawaii. If you want to focus on the culture of Hawaii and cuisine specific to Native Hawaiians, you (or someone else) is going to have to do the research. There are quite a number of articles about the dietary impacts of the western diet on Native Hawaiian, but I'm not all that aware of how their diet differs from the foods described in the parent cuisine article. Expansion of specific foods, such as poi. should probably take place on those pages. Otherwise, when you are talking about "massive expansion", what you are really talking about is an expansion of a cultural topic, not a cuisine topic. Perhaps a Culture of Native Hawaiians topic would allow you to be more inclusive rather than a culture of Hawaii article? I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current sources in place support the expansion of a pre-contact cuisine article, but not much more than that. I suppose it could be called "Native Hawaiian cuisine", but it would have to focus on cultural practices of Native Hawaiians alone, and it would have to use literature about Native Hawaiians. Because of the diaspora, that's going to be extremely hard, but perhaps you could find direction in some of the sovereignty and resistance literature, as well as in the studies being conducted in various universities about Native Hawaiian diet, nutrition, and health. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am confused by some history of article names and moves, including some to userspace and back, and some discussion at Talk pages that lays out conflict among editors. However, my general understanding is that Candleabracadabra believes there is a valid topic here (for native, pre-contact food vs. modern Hawaiian food in Hawaii and/or popular as "Hawaiian" elsewhere), and that several editors agree. I agree too; it is a notable topic.
Further, my general understanding also is that Candleabracadabra nominated this for deletion as a way of calling for general discussion of notability by the community. On the one hand, I don't like "fake AFDs" where the nominator is not really wanting a topic to be deleted. It wastes everyone's time, and can seem to be an attempt to pre-empt any later, possibly legitimate community concern. On the other hand, I sympathize with opening a community discussion to avoid notability being dictated by an administrator's subjective decision that a draft article was not yet worthy enough, reflected by the admin's userfying the page (later note: it was a non-admin editor who did the userfying here, i am corrected). I sympathize with C's effort to call for a community discussion instead. I don't like any adminadmin or other editor userfying an experienced editor's work, other than after a community discussion. (That happened to me in the past and seemed truly awful in terms of the destruction of community and individuals' willingness to edit that it caused; I would support a guideline or policy discussion to restrict "userfications" being done unilaterally). So, I don't like to see this as a fake AFD, and I hope not to see more of these, but I support this one-time usage of the AFD system this way, and I support "Keep" for this article. --doncram 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record doncram, the article was not userfied by an administrator. I believe I am the only editor who has taken any administrative action on this page, and that was only to delete a misplaced redirect during a page move, and to move a page out of userspace and into article space, over top of a copy/paste move. I also closed the previous AfD, however since that was a speedy keep, it could have been done by any editor, not just an administrator. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Kelapstick, for replying and for having provided that summary of actions. I had already seen another copy of that summary and had appreciated your compiling it. I was mistaken in thinking that there were administrator-only actions taken (apparently there were no userfication moves that were done without leaving a redirect behind, which only an admin can do). IMHO, strong action of userfication taken by an editor without using administrator tools, with followup changes to the redirects left behind, seems similarly disruptive, but is not quite as bad as being done with use of admin-only tools. Thank you for clarifying. --doncram 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I have left a note on Viriditas talk page, telling him that at a minimum the second userfication was offside, as well as redirect after the AfD was closed as speedy keep. I do take blame for not immediately reversing it when I saw the move, and not discussing it with him immediately. It is something I should have done. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we keep the article, I suggest it be renamed Native Hawaiian foods so that it is a slightly broader term and takes into account that the ancient Hawaiians didn't really have "cuisine" by today's standards....although Kalua pork is a good argument against that opinion, but for me the simplification is appropriate here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to the title, as long as the non-Native Hawaiian food content and sources are removed. Also, we've got an issue with overlap on articles such as list of Hawaiian foods. And, it should not be allowed to turn into another wild image gallery like the nominator created. Finally, this could have real potential for including ethnobotanical content as well, so you may want to think more about the title. "Native Hawaiian plants and foods" would be more inclusive of the wider topic and you would double the number of sources available. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Native Hawaiian cuisine is the best title. Cuisines include aspects of culture. It is also concise, clear, and consistent with naming conventions on Wikipedia. I have seen a couple of editors suggest an article on Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, but I think this can be covered as part of this article for now and I don't see a need to split off a separate article focusing solely on pre-Western contact periods. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Unlike you, I have actually read the sources about Native Hawaiian food and I am familiar with the content, having written some of it. There is no extant "cuisine". Hawaiian-themed restaurants offer what is known as "local food", a melange of pre-contact, Ancient (or traditional) Hawaiian food, combined with post-contact and plantation food. "Native Hawaiian food" is far more accurate, although even that article topic is suspect. What we do know is that there are sources about Ancient Hawaiian food. In the contemporary era, we have sources about how the contemporary Native Hawaiian diet is impacting their health. What you have done is purposefully copy and paste material from an article about the cuisine of Hawaii into a new article for the sole purpose of creating image galleries against MOS:IMAGES. You were told not to do this on the original parent article so you created a new, forked article with the same content to engage in the same disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It does need expansion, but this is a notable topic. A native cuisine of Hawaii is different than just a cuisine of Hawaii (which can be McDonald's, considering that Hawaii is part of the fast-food-happy US), so these two should be two separate articles. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a valid topic and should be kept. I would like to see it follow the naming guidelines for cuisine though, Native Hawaiian cuisine. e.g. Native American cuisine and others. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Native American cuisine is a mostly unsourced article (definitely not B-class). I would not like to see any of our articles use that topic as a "model". Furthermore, Native Americans have special rights and privileges that Native Hawaiians do not (for example, see the proposed Akaka Bill) so your analogy doesn't work. Finally, your concern with "naming guidelines" over and above article content and accuracy is most distressing. This would go a long way to explaining why the Food and Drink project rarely produces quality content. "Naming guidelines" are meant to guide us, they are not meant to rule us. And they most certainly should not be used to distort or imply a scope that the subject doesn't have. For the most part, the article "Native American cuisine" is about food not cuisine. To use this poorly sourced article as an "example" for others to follow is quite sad, but telling. No, I'm sorry, we should not degrade the quality of our content and our overall accuracy in the way you suggest. You have simply offered no good reason to fork this content into another article. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really should learn to not talk to people like that - Insulting the members of the F&D Project and the project is unnecessary. Naming guidelines are there to help us ensure that we have continuity and standards. You don't like the first example I provided, lets go with French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Indian cuisine or any of the other cuisine articles that are of high quality. Too many times I have seen pathetic edit wars over national or regional cuisines because a one contributor or another feels that other editors have no right to edit articles involving their national/cultural cuisine. Macedonian cuisine, Korean cuisine, Japanese cuisine etc have all been the subjects of edit wars over disputes such as this. That is why I generally stay out of these articles, I prefer not to get involved in the chest thumping antics of culture warriors. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's certainly some overlap, but this looks like a distinct and valid topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic which meets standards for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dolovis (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Native_cuisine_of_Hawaii&oldid=1082411242"