205:, and East Asian cultural subjects. Given the comprehensive information on German Knowledge (XXG), I'm convinced that the creator of the list is a German expert in Chinese medicine and food therapy. The list is correctly compiled by period and each entry is carefully chosen. Actually I intended to create a list of historical Korean culinary books, so I can easily accumulate the list. I once saw a similar list written all in Chinese on Chinese medicine sites, but could not find it this time. However, English sources can be easily found because of the notability that the subject has. If somebody asks me about what the
211:, Confucian studies, other poetry works have something to do with cuisine, I'd say those refers to not only foods, but also eating habits, and historical contexts. Some of books even refer to foreign dishes. At a first glance, the list filled with unintelligable Chinese characters had no reference and no information, but the nominator is a native speaker of Chinese, so he can easily detect what each entry means. However, he nominated it to be deleted. He also tried to PROD
528:- Any type of historical list comprised of 100s of years of materials needs to be kept. A list does not have to resemble an article. There is no rule in wikipedia that says lists are not allowed. If people want examples of unenyclopedic lists, just type "list of" at the search box and watch the huge drop down list of stuff having no importance that doesn't get challenged.
241:(especially when there's a category designed just for this purpose, and contains far more entries than that one). Also isn't it a little generalizing if you assume that Chinese can always be understood? It's a language like any other, and fragments of text on articles with a nonsensical title is... very hard to understand.
279:
Now you're just confusing me with a completely unrelated article. What I was trying to say was that the original article was completely redundant and offered no useful information besides a generic picture. The
Spanish dishes list complements the category very well, while this (and the Chinese dishes
132:
Article is a scattered list of sources (nearly all of which are red links) for some generic
Chinese cuisine articles. Looks completely useless; sources would have long been added into a references section in whatever articles that used this list, and the list is completely vague as to what exactly it
665:
Listing over two thousand years worth of historical documents that exist, which mention a specific topic, is clearly encyclopedic. The fact that the
English wikipedia doesn't have articles for all the Chinese historical documents, thus the reason for the many red links, is not a valid reason to try
618:
I haven't even said anything about that in the deletion rationale. Lately it seems you've just been posting the same message at a list-related AfD instead of actually reading the reasons why it was posted. What do red links and blue links even have to do with this discussion (I did mention it, but
297:
I don't confuse you at all. I see many potentials from the list of
Chinese dishes as it is. The list of Spanish dishes started from "zero" but has a good shape (still needs more references though). A small improvement by editors can turn a seemingly useless article into a valuable article. I just
547:- It is an interesting time line of culinary history that has potential. Let Caspian work on this, lists are her forte. Being in East Asia, she has better access to reliable, secondary sources on the subject than us in the West and can make this a viable list in short order. --
568:- An encyclopedic article listing precious sources of Chinese culinary history. The importance of this article should be clear to all editors, not just those active in editing articles on Chinese cuisine.
92:
87:
606:, but I saw a potential, so expanded. But if the nominator still thinks that the article is redundant of the pertinent category, well, I suggest him to rethink about purposes of lists and categories--
96:
79:
488:
section that I expanded today? The list is not just a tool for generating blue links. The list is also a timetable to show the
Chinese culinary history and flow. This can be compared with
384:
408:
125:
432:
83:
360:
280:
list) only provide redundant information and nothing much more useful besides that. And I really doubt it's possible to convey much more useful information.
485:
75:
67:
152:- It appears to be copied from the German Wiki. It is completely unclear why this article xists or what the inclusion criteria for this list is. --
689:
651:
629:
613:
594:
577:
558:
537:
516:
499:
476:
445:
421:
397:
373:
332:
320:
305:
290:
274:
251:
222:
188:
176:
161:
143:
61:
462:
298:
want to say deleting is not always a right solution. Do you think the current article in question still has no valuable information?--
17:
310:
Seeing what you've contributed to it, I'm more neutral now. I'll leave this up to the other editors and see what the result is.
133:
sources. In fact, it doesn't seem to be a list of sources at all, just random articles that are hardly related to each other.
585:- an invaluable, well-sourced and informative list. There is no requirement for lists to be restricted to blue-linked items.
49:
489:
704:
36:
169:
Useful list that could be a navigational guide and be references for history of
Chinese cuisine-related articles.--
512:
472:
507:
OK it is looking like it could make a valid list article in it self. I had rejected the speedy delete earlier.
703:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
264:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
193:
More I add and read sources, more I get to realize that the list has very valuable information to not only
607:
493:
439:
415:
391:
367:
326:
299:
268:
260:
238:
216:
212:
182:
170:
181:
I update the list by expanding contents and sourcing with reliable references. Please see the progress.--
57:
465:. This looks more like a tool for development of articles than a valid list article in its own right.
508:
468:
573:
533:
553:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
667:
647:
590:
198:
53:
622:
313:
283:
244:
194:
136:
569:
157:
237:
As much as I tried to, I couldn't make any sense about this article or the other one,
529:
548:
113:
643:
586:
642:
Bartlett above says 'if it gets blue links'. It is not all about GraYoshi2x.
153:
207:
602:, when GraYoshi2x nominated the article for deletion, it was like
467:
Otherwise if it gets blue links it could become part of a portal.
697:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
619:
that wasn't my main point at all)? That just plain confuses me.
202:
325:
I thought you would withdraw the nomination at this stage.--
492:
too, but I think it has more potential than the latter.--
603:
120:
109:
105:
101:
215:. That practice does not help improve the articles.--
385:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
454:as unencyclopedic.--Yopie 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
707:). No further edits should be made to this page.
409:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
433:list of History-related deletion discussions
76:List of sources of Chinese culinary history
68:List of sources of Chinese culinary history
427:
403:
379:
361:list of China-related deletion discussions
355:
431:: This debate has been included in the
407:: This debate has been included in the
383:: This debate has been included in the
359:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
490:List of online encyclopedias
724:
259:Do you think the article
700:Please do not modify it.
690:09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
652:20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
630:00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
614:00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
595:23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
578:22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
559:10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
538:01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
517:10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
500:23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
477:22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
446:13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
422:13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
398:13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
374:13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
333:01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
321:00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
306:00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
291:00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
275:23:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
265:Category:Spanish cuisine
252:23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
223:00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
189:23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
177:13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
162:17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
144:22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
62:00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
261:List of Spanish dishes
239:List of Chinese dishes
213:List of Chinese dishes
484:Can you look at the
461:to a subpage of the
263:is a redundancy of
44:The result was
557:
448:
436:
424:
412:
400:
388:
376:
364:
50:non-admin closure
715:
702:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
625:
551:
463:Food wikiproject
437:
413:
389:
365:
316:
286:
247:
199:Chinese medicine
139:
123:
117:
99:
34:
723:
722:
718:
717:
716:
714:
713:
712:
711:
705:deletion review
698:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
623:
509:Graeme Bartlett
469:Graeme Bartlett
314:
284:
245:
195:Chinese cuisine
137:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
721:
719:
710:
709:
693:
692:
666:to delete it.
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
635:
634:
633:
632:
616:
580:
562:
561:
541:
540:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
455:
449:
425:
401:
377:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
164:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
720:
708:
706:
701:
695:
694:
691:
688:
687:
664:
661:
660:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
631:
628:
627:
626:
617:
615:
612:
610:
605:
601:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
560:
555:
550:
546:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
501:
498:
496:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
464:
460:
456:
453:
450:
447:
444:
442:
434:
430:
426:
423:
420:
418:
410:
406:
402:
399:
396:
394:
386:
382:
378:
375:
372:
370:
362:
358:
354:
353:
334:
331:
329:
324:
323:
322:
319:
318:
317:
309:
308:
307:
304:
302:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
288:
287:
278:
277:
276:
273:
271:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
253:
250:
249:
248:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
224:
221:
219:
214:
210:
209:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
187:
185:
180:
179:
178:
175:
173:
168:
165:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
147:
146:
145:
142:
141:
140:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
699:
696:
668:
662:
621:
620:
608:
599:
582:
565:
544:
525:
504:
494:
486:Yuan dynasty
481:
458:
457:
451:
440:
428:
416:
404:
392:
380:
368:
356:
327:
312:
311:
300:
282:
281:
269:
256:
243:
242:
217:
206:
183:
171:
166:
149:
135:
134:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
624:GraYoshi2x►
600:To be clear
315:GraYoshi2x►
285:GraYoshi2x►
246:GraYoshi2x►
197:, but also
167:Strong Keep
138:GraYoshi2x►
54:Ron Ritzman
570:Badagnani
554:blah blah
530:Benjwong
257:Question
126:View log
609:Caspian
495:Caspian
482:Comment
441:Caspian
417:Caspian
393:Caspian
369:Caspian
328:Caspian
301:Caspian
270:Caspian
218:Caspian
208:Shijing
184:Caspian
172:Caspian
93:protect
88:history
644:Occuli
587:Occuli
549:Jeremy
452:Delete
201:, and
150:Delete
121:delete
97:delete
685:Focus
203:herbs
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
663:Keep
648:talk
611:blue
604:this
591:talk
583:Keep
574:talk
566:Keep
545:Keep
534:talk
526:Keep
513:talk
505:Keep
497:blue
473:talk
459:Move
443:blue
429:Note
419:blue
405:Note
395:blue
381:Note
371:blue
357:Note
330:blue
303:blue
272:blue
267:? --
220:blue
186:blue
174:blue
158:talk
154:Whpq
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
48:. (
650:)
593:)
576:)
536:)
515:)
475:)
435:.
411:.
387:.
363:.
160:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
682:m
679:a
676:e
673:r
670:D
646:(
589:(
572:(
556:)
552:(
532:(
511:(
471:(
438:—
414:—
390:—
366:—
156:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.