Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pastries

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 SNOW keep The clear majority consensus that the topic is verifiable, notable, and definable is not going change anytime soon. The article has also improved significantly since it was nominated. Steven Walling • talk 03:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of pastries

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Categories and articles suffice. Yet another example of a fixation by editors with lists rather than actual content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Donut just eat you up? Its eclair case; the author should be put in custardy. Most of the content is already on the Pastry article. Regards. RJH (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like haha you deserve a medal. Brilliant!! Btw I do think the article topic has merit and should be kept. I know "otherstuffexists" isnt really a defense, well, other stuff kinda does exist - many many other lists of foods. Although the article is woeful atm, i see nothing wrong with the article comcept.--Coin945 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ....umm... No, I don't have a rejoinder. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for not being tart. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's ok. Here, try some of my spotted dick. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no purpose that a category would not server. Just a list for the sake of being a list. JIP | Talk 04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because I thought it would help add to the considerable lists of foods (e.g. List of cakes or List of breads that are already in Wikipedia. I am aware that this is a rather briefer list, so if you would prefer this one to be a category, just go ahead and make it so. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." This is a list of articles relevant to the notable topic of pastry. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been significantly expanded, and has been significantly improved compared to its state at the time of this nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider adding descriptions, or better still converting to the format used by:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An exceptional idea, and thanks for the suggestion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, pastries, *drool*. Attempting to delete a list purely because it's a list is quite improper - see WP:CLN. Warden (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems that this process is being abused because someone wants an article to be improved, not because it needs to be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I did not see any use for it. It started off as four links and on balance deletion seemed like a good option. But you have given me an idea... "Hmm, looks like I can use AfDs for getting articles cleaned up" thought Alan to himself.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "abuse of process and disruptive editing" thought TRM to himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Expand the article. Add expansion tags. Don't abuse the process by nominating for deletion. Disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly reasonable topic for a list, although it could usefully be worked on to give more than a basic list. An individual bias against lists is not good grounds for trying to get them deleted. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias against lists, but I don't like bad lists. There seems to be a bias towards creating lists by some editors and it is at the expense of the utility of WP as a whole. This list has been expanded beyond its intial four plain links. the list needs work as you and others suggest. A list with out annotations is next to useless. May as well have a category. As suggested above it would be better add some actual information to it. 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

So, then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM's you perceive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I saw no future in retaining the article so I saw no need to fix it. What it has now grown into shows that my initial assumptions were incorrect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided it is filled out with text as the first part has so far..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. This is a perfectly good, sourceable list. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)• Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being redundant with categories is never a reason to delete lists. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The other keeps have stated the point rather well and I agree with their reasoning. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please assume good faith with Alan Liefting. When he nommed it, it was just a raw list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Anna" sobbed Alan quietly while hiding behind Anna's pleated skirt. Everyone else in the room, busy enough as they were with the task in hand, ignored the little tit-for-tat exchange. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! "Raw". Good one. You know! raw? pastry? food? ... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, it would have been so much easier to assume good faith with Alan if he had withdrawn his nomination when it became apparent that the list was salvageable instead of his recommendation still saying delete. 65.40.155.250 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– The content, length, completeness, style and formatting of the article has been greatly expanded compared to the state it was in at the time of its nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to the editors who improved the article since it was originally listed here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now bears no resemblance to the bare fa gao it was at the time of its nom. Kudos indeed to the editors, especially Northamerica1000, who rallied to the cause and dramatically upped the ante so it starts with Allerheiligenstriezel and goes on and on until it ends in Zlebia. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:01, 7 May 2012 (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.