Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curry chicken

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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curry chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There seems to be nothing encyclopedic to say about this dish other than that it exists, i.e. the mundane fact that chicken meat may be cooked with curry powder in a variety of ways, none of which are individually notable as far as I can see. (Come to think of it, might even be speediable under the letter of WP:CSD#A3, but seems too wordy for its spirit). The main interest of the article's creator seems to be to exhort the world to mind the subtle differences between "chicken curry" and "curry chicken"... –Henning Makholm 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Although some of your reasons for deletion may be thought about, The article has further been enhanced with a history section. In addition, your arguments for deletion also apply for various articles such as Roti, Aloo gobi, Fried_rice etc. This article has now some historical content. It seems the creator is a newbee, and thus It would be appropriate if we help the author by further adding to the article. I and you all like big penis lol guess the best way is to, add the various cultural histories of the curry chicken dish. In addition, this article can not be added to the curry article because it is not a curry dish. This is a chicken dish, NOT merely a curry dish. In addition, the contents of this article is quite large, and it will become even larger when other lovers of the curry chicken dish from different culture backgrounds, add their own historical history of this dish.

• Sorry, I sometimes talk in the third person, when I am adamant in seeking justice. Thatopshotta 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • You are the creator, Thatopshotta (talk · contribs). There is no need to talk about yourself in the third person, and it is not a good idea to do so, because it can be construed as misleading.

Uncle G 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a quibble. --Brianyoumans 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. As a second reason for deletion, no reliably sourced, and hence no verification of the various distinctions the creator exhorts us to make. No idea if any of these distinctions represent a mainstream POV or not. --Shirahadasha 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, to verification of the distinction between chicken curry and curry chicken is simple. If you look for recipes of the two dishes, they are summed up by what the article says. Nonetheless, the article has historical facts that are sourced, and is not merely distinguishing between curry chicken and chicken curry. The distinction is just there, to clarify the two dishes.Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:not an encyclopedia article or a cookbook article. Stormbay 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no encyclopedic value to this article except to point out that it exists. It's a wordy dictionary definition. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Also, this would not be eligible for CSD A3, that is for articles that have no content whatsoever, only links perhaps you meant A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A3 does, however, allow for external links and "a rephrasing of the title". –Henning Makholm 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's a bit more information than is required to delete under A3. It's not a lot, but it's moot since we're discussing here at AfD - it can run its course. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to curry. John Reaves (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR or Redirect to curry. If deleting, do so without prejudice to proper (i.e., sourced and more encyclopedic) recreation. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as valid search term to curry, which mentions chicken quite a few times with images. Pomte 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect per John Reaves, it does make me want some chicken though. TJ Spyke 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a little encyclopedic but not its overall notability is low, it also fails WP:NOT#IINFO.Tellyaddict 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to curry. I don't see any encyclopedic and sourced information in the article. Curry chicken is a popular dish in Asia, but it just needs a section in Curry. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Curry. There is something interesting there, but I think that should be merged into the curry article. Arnoutf 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to curry, as per Arnoutf. Zelse81 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This article gets us nothing that the curry article couldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I like this article As a native of India, I loved my chicken curry. As I travelled the world, I met many wonderful people. I got to taste this curry chicken dish, and I was extatic. The article has hit the point, about the subtle difference between curry chicken and chicken curry. But more than that, the historical section seems interesting. I will be doing research when I get the time, to find out some other culutural histories of curry chicken!! Great Article! --Mary from Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.11.98.150 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep or Merge There is legitimacy in there, which deserves to be preserved. Dfrg.msc 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Curry sufficiently covers prepared curry dishes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a distinct, legitimate point in that article. I have been to many countries, US, Canada, France, England, India, Pakistan, Jamaica..., working temp-work, mostly as a part-time chef. I have noticed for example that when I cook for a Hindu or Pakistan community, we create the dishes with very few chicken and mostly curry. This is spread over rice, and used like Dahl. However, when I have cooked for Jamaican, and West Indian communities, we/I have prepared chicken by soaking it in a special curry sauce, and so on. I am pleased to see that this article points this subtle difference in these two dishes, and I hope it can remain. I must say, I shall try that Ultimate Curry Chicken recipe on the link provided, looks fantastic!! GobtaNIndia 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]

  After reading the discussion, I must say Aloo gobi and Fried_rice and Garam_masala and Chicken_tikka_masala (Also, chicken tikka massala picture on the link looks alot like chicken curry? But not curry chicken!) and many more articles I have noticed, all are similar to this Curry chicken article. All the points being made above apply to these articles also. Just a thought. | YaYa its Gobta 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it's possible that they should be nominated for deletion or merged into something else. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, that's ludicrous. What one earth has Fried Rice got to go with Curry Chicken, apart from having a similar photo? As for the others, it would be like calling for an AfD on Cherry Pie because it's almost the same as Apple Pie. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry that your sorry, I think my explanation above gives reason what fried rice has to do with curry chicken. The point is, after reading these arguments above, saying "should be merged with curry article", then why is not "chicken tika masala" not merged with curry or masala. Why is "Garam Masala" not merged with masala. Why is "Aloo gobi" not merged with aloo, or gobi. That is the point. I say they should not be merged, and therefore this curry chicken should not be merged with curry. It deserves its own article, as those the articles stated in my statement. GobtaNIndia 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]

• Update Interesting Trivia, the curry chicken article continues to grow, with facsinating facts. There is no way in my opinion, this can fit under the curry category, but above all I continue to insist that it doesn't even belong in the curry section since it is a chicken dish. Also, it has become encyclopediac content with the new updates.

Sorry, but I am a newbee, and did you not tell me only post once under one comment? Leeba?

Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post as many comments as you want, if you're responding to other comments, but don't put a Bold word at the beginning of more than one and not sign them as if you are two people voting. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ...or redirect to curry as suggested. Curry goat is better anyway. - Denny 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• :: on further consideration, Keep. There seems to be precedence for this sort of article, and it looks sourceable (google for "curry chicken" plus news). I stand by my curry goat comment, however. - Denny 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - there are lots of articles on single food types/items. It's a notable food, especially in the Caribbean where it is considered a major local dish not just in Trinidad, where almost half the population is Indian, but also in Jamaica, where the Indian population is small, and other islands where there has never been much of an Indian population at all. Merging it with curry would require a complete re-write of that article. Guettarda 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This might be a stupid question but what notability guideline should apply to food? - Denny 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is certainly a major distinction between this dish and chicken curry, as the article rather haltingly states. It could do with a rewrite though, and probably a name change - after all it's not just chicken that's prepared this way. A merge into Curry would be misleading, but it could certainly find its way into an article on West Indian cuisine. Cuisine_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago, possibly? EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unique and interesting piece that could become more encyclopedic on Wikipedia than any other ___location if given the chance... Smee 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Food items are encyclopedically notable, and this is not an uncommon or obscure food item. -Toptomcat 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Curry Chicken is an important part of many cultures around the world, and it will be discriminating if this article is not given chance to portray itself. Also, it deserves its own article and not be merged with curry. Alanacomet 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)alanacomet — alanacomet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete one of my favorite foods. Should be covered in Curry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - i agree w. Smee, and the chef above. I think it's a decent article that has some singular facts. It could use more sources, but my vote is keep.--Debsuls 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Popular and varied dish. Also passes the Brittanica Test: If I see an article in Brittanica about this, I won't think, "why did they include this?". (Google tests aren't policy, but just a note: [1] "curry chicken"] gets 436,000 results.) - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - These articles that are being brought up maybe a part of a country's cuisine section. Also not everyone makes Curry chicken the same. Sure Curry maybe the most pronounced ingredient but there's various ways it can be prepaired. I also find it funny based on the bias on Wikipedia that someone would call this a "Mundane" article yet there's one on Spaghetti Sauce. I bet that same crowd would say *that* was a very importaint article. CaribDigita 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't really have any basis to claim that just because someone says "delete" for curry chicken that they want the spaghetti sauce article to stay. In fact, one should remember that inclusion is not an indication of validity. In other words, just because something "mundane" like, say butter, has an article (a featured one at that) it doesn't mean that every food item deserves an article. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I also see you believe that there is an "American Deletionist Cabal". So, I figured I'd point that out before I'm accused of saying delete just because I'm American. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:23, 4 March 2007 (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.