Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut butter bun

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The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter bun

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Combine [your choice of filling] with [bun] or [sandwich] and this is what you get. Nothing particularly notable about thie either - it's a Hong Kong adaption of a western 'sandwich', and the article is entirely unsourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a page on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich and salad dressing sandwich. This is a complete violation of DISCRIMINATION of culture. Not tolerable on wikipedia. Benjwong (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it's weak, but Benjwong's point has a small amount of validity to it. Looking around online, I found sufficient blog references to indicate that its cultural weight is probably beyond what the average westerner can appreciate. Unfortunately, these blog don't really meet WP:RS, but maybe if Benjwong, who was a primary contributor to the article, can come up with something for us by way of citations, then it can stay. Unschool (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect All the various Chinese "bun" articles into Chinese bakery and redirect the current pages there. I'm ignoring all the rules here (wp:n and the like) because if I read somewhere about a "peanut butter bun" I'd like wikipedia to tell me what it is, just like someone else might like to know what a fluffernutter is. Yes, it doesn't have a lot of coverage but here are some references about this food item that could be incorporated in the article: from a book, a review, review from blog. Yes I know, not reliable 3 party sources. And yes only a few ghits depending on search terms. These don't need a page of their own at present and if they grow large enough to warrant an article of their own that can be done later. Faradayplank (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are more than 1000 google page hits. The search should have been done in the chinese characters. Very few food items actually have undisputed english names. "Peanut butter bun" can be considered a transliterated name. Benjwong (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am seeing a pattern that the proposing editor is targeting cuisine items from Chinese cuisine, always without properly making his/her case for deletion, and usually for items that are clearly discrete, specific items of cuisine that the Chinese cuisine project is aiming to describe in our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you appear to be suggesting I'm engaging in bad faith nominations. Therefore, as a gentle reminder: please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the reasonable points that have been brought up in its defense, wikipedia cannot have an article about everything, that being why we have WP:N and WP:V. There needs to be some kind of reliable source that we can point to so that it's clear that this is at least a fairly notable food dish. I don't particularly see why we need to have an article about a peanut butter filled pastry if it's not well known. Boccobrock•T 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok the thing that hurts most chinese food articles is that there is never any web sources. Seriously I got stuff so rare it will generate zero hits on google. I am already backing off from adding those to wiki. What we are putting up here is already pretty obvious. Ask people who go to bakery shops regularly. This one is almost always on the shelf. Benjwong (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it may exist in many a Chinese bakery or cha chaan teng, but so does the ham and egg sandwich or the lemon tea. If I were to cite something to benchmark any bakery item against, it would be Yuanyang, Egg tart or pineapple bun. I'm sorry, but I feel this one doesn't even come close - I'd be doing it a favour referring to this even as a 'variant'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All this benchmarking is culture driven. Is like flagging Fortune cookies for deletion cause it has little to no notability anywhere in the far east. Maybe someone needs to research how peanut butter, a very American ingredient gets used in such a popular pastry on the other side of the planet. Is not everyday that western ingredients are utilized. Look at cheese for example. It still hasn't really caught on. This is why I said if you have no interest in food, please do not get involved. Benjwong (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, the comparison is even not true and an exaggeration from your lack of knowledge of the regional info and culture. The Far East includes Taiwan, Japan, South Korean, and Mongol but due to hollywood movies and tv series, fortune cookie is familiar to at least South Korean and Japanese.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Chinese bakery as there appears to be no way to substantially expand this stub but merging it (and other, similar stubs) to Chinese bakery could turn that into a first-class article. The subject would be covered well, as the author intends, and the project would be better served in several significant ways. This isn't about culture, this is about the encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This bun is widely sold in South Korea and Japan, or any Asian markets in some of English speaking world, so I doubt it is an indigenous food to Hong Kong. If it is kept, the article should not mislead information on the bread. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless there's evidence of something being not in good faith here, I say keep it. Articles about specific things that are a litte out of the ordinary are great topic.s --Firefly322 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw In response to Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV)'s suggestion in another AfD, and as a gesture of goodwill, I would withdraw this nomination. I would ask the creator and other staunch defender(s) of the article to please fix the problems of the article, instead of indulging in character assassination to defend the article. Looking back, I guess I could have been more communicative. I really object to being portrayed as the bogeyman and philistine in this. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (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.