Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs

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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of chefs

List of chefs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nominated per WP:LISTCRUFT - namely:

  • The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There are little to no summaries of listed articles; several are also redlinks.
  • The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list.
  • The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

Most of the notable entries on the list are already in Category:Chefs, so having this list around really isn't necessary, productive, or efficient. Therefore, I propose the article be deleted. Sidatio 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Definitely a job for a category. - Richfife 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, particularly the unlimited/unmaintainable aspects. The inclusion criteria (just being called a "chef") is far too broad. ◄Zahakiel► 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the nomination is wrong, there are plenty of annotations, and fictional chefs are in their own distinct "fictional chefs" section. Kappa 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Oddly, there's a category, but it's limited to "American chefs". Leave this up until we get a category that recognizes that the blue-linked chefs aren't limited to the USA. I can't agree that this is unmaintainable, nor that the inclusion is too simple. Nobody is going to make it on to this list simply by grilling hamburgers over the weekend. Mandsford 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Decent arguments, but the list is still far too open-ended to be maintainable. Regardless of whether or not the fictional chefs have their own section, they're still included on the list. That just adds to the incredible amount of maintenance this list would require. Also, it's not just chefs on this list; it also allows notable gastronomes, which can apply to a wide range of people in a wide range of professions. Further, the list doesn't distinguish based on any other criteria as outlined above - living, dead, male, female, American, Spanish, whatever. All one would have to be is a notable chef, and with a large amount of culinary publications, shows, and other notable sources available, it's definitely an issue. It just doesn't conform to WP:LISTCRUFT, and would take an unreasonable amount of work to do so - especially when categorization is a far less-intensive alternative. Are there any arguments that would address those important issues? Sidatio 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline, it's just POV deletionist bullshit do not lie about what it is. Kappa 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Please try to be more civil with your comments; it is perfectly reasonable to point out that WP:LISTCRUFT is, in fact, an essay that reflects the views of its author and not the Wikipedia community. It is, however, not necessarily to call that author's opinion "POV deletionist bullshit." Thanks for your contributions and for your participation in this debate. Best, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that that author chooses to insult other members of the community and misrepresent their motives. It's doubly unfortunate that other editors follow this lead. Kappa 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Calling a perfectly reasonable essay against far too open-ended lists "POV deletionist bullshit" is just pointless. And in this case it feels like someone's being a very black pot. Everything that is short of keeping for lack of proper policies to ruleslawyer isn't rabid deletionism.
Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful step towards the development of further articles. This is one of the recognized functions of Lists in WP. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete list of loosely associated topics and should be replaced with a category. We do not need infinite lists of people by profession Corpx 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lists are useful in some cases, but category suffices here. Create a category for fictional chefs as well. Besides, I don't see any red links, so the usual "it encourages creation of new articles" argument is not valid here. utcursch | talk 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Why would you force users to play retarded guessing games instead of helping them to find articles of interest? Kappa 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmanagable category-ish list. Lists need to be far more specific since there must be thousands and thousands of chefs suitable for articles, whether they be living, dead or fictional. Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it just me, or does it seem like every time I nominate or endorse the deletion of a list, I get a heapin' helpin' dose of incivility? I'm starting to see a pattern.

For starters, my apologies - I'm still a little new here and I didn't realize that WP:LISTCRUFT wasn't policy, per se. (You'd think I'd notice the big box at the top of the essay, but there it is.) I think those are pretty efficient guidelines, but that's another argument. It also doesn't change the fact that the article is inherently unmanageable per the arguments outlined above; primarily its maintainability, an issue that still doesn't seem to have been addressed. Further, I wouldn't exactly term myself "deletionist". I did, after all, chime in to keep such articles as the Stanford Mendicants and put my reputation on the line for a hip-hop clothing company I had never heard of before. For someone who wants to keep so many articles, Kappa, one would think you'd be an ace researcher. You may want to research a person's contributions next time before you go slinging names.

Anything further about my views toward articles, intelligence level, or pants size can be discussed on my talk page. Oh, and Kappa? Please don't edit my comments in the future without informing me. Thank you. Sidatio 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were a deletionist, please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you're not denying that you edited his comments. Needless to say, that's a no-no, and I'd be more pissed than Sidatio if it happened to me. Not saying that you did it, but IF you did (easy to check) you owe the guy an apology rather than a smart remark. I like that you're trying to defend articles, but we defenders need all the help that we can get. Dial it down a few notches. Mandsford 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding editing his comments, I don't know how that happened, I may have done it by mistake, perhaps I hit ctrl-x instead of ctrl-c. I apologize for my carelessness. Kappa 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For those interested, I've opened up a discussion on whether or not it is prudent to make an official policy or guideline to be used in regards to the creation and retention of lists:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: All right, Kappa - relax. It's just an article - no one's trying to take your house. Mandsford and Phirazo are offering you sound advice - you might want to take it. Sidatio 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What people are trying to do is give me a shitty encylopedia where I have to play retarded guessing games to find the articles I am looking for. In the process they are wasting all the time I try to put in to make something better. Kappa 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore they continuously prove they lack the ability for even grasp the problem, like this vote from Phirazo, and the one below. Kappa 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You are correct, I do not "grasp the problem". What kind of "guessing games" are you referring to? --Phirazo 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know why anyone would want a random article on a chef, but even if someone would want one, I have trouble understanding why this would be more difficult with a category rather than a list. The list would be subject to all the usual nonsense of undue weight, incomplete listings, nationalist enthusiasts, etc. The category would be far more difficult to corrupt by POV-warriors and vandals and would certainly make the randomness easier to achieve. Peter Isotalo 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is what Category:Japanese chefs looks like, and here's a guessing game for you, you decide if it's retarded or not: What style do they cook? What countries do they work in? What are they most famous for? Who has an international chain of restaurants? Who is known for inventing a style of sushi?
Chen Kenichi
Chen Kenmin
Hanaya Yohei
Yutaka Ishinabe
Toshiro Kandagawa
Masahiko Kobe
Harumi Kurihara
Nobu Matsuhisa
Rokusaburo Michiba
Masaharu Morimoto
Koumei Nakamura
Hiroyuki Sakai
Yūji Wakiya
Tetsuya Wakuda
Roy Yamaguchi
Kappa 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe problem is, this list isn't really useful for navigation that way. The majority of the entries in this list are simple blue links, and the scope of this article is so large it is infeasible to expand to include short information about each chef. Besides, you can look at the leads of those articles, which are generally short enough to get an idea of why that chef is notable. --Phirazo 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, you don't expect people to guess which chefs they would be interested in from the name, you want them to plow through the entire category of Japanese chefs. 15 Japanese chefs... incredibly tedious but I guess some people would try. 110 American chefs... Kappa 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Kappa, we can't facilitate a summary of every imaginable search parameter for every imaginable subject just because it is deemed "useful". Even general encyclopedias require a minimum of effort when it comes to searching, and demanding that people actually read articles doesn't strike me as being particularly unreasonable. Articles are in themselves summaries of existing knowledge and are suppose to contain at least one summary in the form of the lead (more if there are sub-articles). How many summaries of summaries of summaries do we actually need?
Peter Isotalo 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So we can't have "every imaginable search parameter " for chefs, maybe we could have 1 though? You need a summary of articles when it becomes incredibly tedious and a great waste of bandwidth to read through every individual article's lead. No-one would actually do this, whether it's reasonable to ask them to or not, especially if their search criteria is something like "earliest chef per country" which would be mine. Note that the number of "summaries of summaries" needed decreases exponentially so the answer is "not many". The category system can actually handle it reasonable well above a certain level (not this one). Kappa 10:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. This is a redundant, unmanagable list. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's not trivial information as it does categorise people in a useful way (by occupation), but then again it could just exist as a category.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Convert to category. We have plenty of categories of "nationality + profession", and there doesn't seem to be all that much extra data that can be added to this list, or a meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. Note that changing a list to a category is not a loss of information (if done properly). >Radiant< 11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The meaningful order is either by country or by year of birth. See my "guessing games" comment for what other information can be added, some of it already has. Changing a list to a category not only destroys information, it distributes it into tiny chunks (e.g. category:Swiss chefs with one member) when they could all be accessed from the same page. Kappa 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. The ideal long-term solution for this would be technical changes to the category implementation: the ability to view all subcategories and category members "flat" -- all on one page); and category-specific searching ("Armenian chefs AND (1800 births to 1900 births)"). But that solution is necessarily in the programmers' hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs)
Comment Which consensus? Surely you're not talking about consensus so far on this list, right? Sidatio 03:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Kappa 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on list of Poles. Do try to follow the discussion. Kappa 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So, you're trying to use consensus from a completely different discussion, then? Would you mind explaining to me how that works? You see, I was under the impression that each AfD was a separate case. Sidatio 11:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
OK I see following discussions is a big challenge for you so let me try to make it really really simple. Phirazo says "there are far too many notable chefs for this article to be maintainable or complete". There are more notable Poles than notable chefs, so by this logic "list of Poles" should be deleted too. Phirazo should either tell me he also thinks "list of Poles" should be deleted, or give a reason why this list is different from that one. If he does neither he is a hypocrite. Kappa 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
And there's the fallacy in your argument - there are more notable listed Poles than listed chefs. Just because they've yet to make the list doesn't mean there's less notable chefs ("and others noteworthy for their culinary skills") throughout recorded history than notable Poles.
Following a conversation isn't anywhere NEAR as difficult as following your version of logic. Also, are we ever going to see any civility out of you? Acting like this isn't winning you any arguments. Sidatio 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
OK let me see if I've got this straight. The reason list of Poles is being split whereas list of chefs is being deleted is that there are fewer notable Poles throughout recorded history than notable chefs? Kappa 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I love how I become the focal point of these discussions. Of course, it must be my fault that happens.
Now, from what I understand, there is a discussion on whether or not splitting the list of Poles is prudent - and to be quite honest, it's not much of a discussion, nor does it seem much has been decided. Further, what works for one article may not necessarily work for another. If you propose to split this list, how would you split it? Are we narrowing it to just chefs, or are we still including "others noteworthy for their culinary skills"? What, exactly, does that last criteria entail? If the list is split into, say, nationality, would these new lists have enough entries to remain viable?
Perhaps you should try answering these questions rather than ranting on about what's happening at another article, or trying (poorly) to warp the discussion to suit your point of view on the matter. Sidatio 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"ranting on" "warp the discussion"... these are civil comments? Hmmm
Anyway I'm glad you asked those questions, it seems like you are actually open to the idea of a split, maybe you could have mentioned that before nominating the article or at the same time. If I was allowed to split out the largest nationalities they would make viable lists and the remaining list would be considerably smaller. If you demand that the list be split into one list per nationality then no, most of them are not viable they have 1-3 members apiece. If you like we can drop "others noteworthy for their culinary skills" and simply define chefs as "members of category:Chefs". Kappa 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem. After splitting, there really wouldn't be enough left over to justify an index list for the resulting viable sub-lists. You'd get, what, 3 viable sub-lists? American chefs, Japanese chefs, and maybe fictional chefs? Sidatio 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that the other national lists would stay part of this one until they grew.

Kappa 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the logic in that. Instead of making one more anemic article (or, in this case, one more anemic list), why not take, say, Scottish chefs and bolster the Scottish cuisine article with a significant write-up of their contributions to their regional fare? I don't see much of a point in letting information languish in the hopes of future expansion when that information can benefit an existing article. Why have a list simply for the sake of having a list? Sidatio 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sidatio how many times have I asked you to follow the discussion now? We don't have the list simply for the sake of it, we have it so that people don't have to play retarded guessing games when they are looking for articles about chefs. Kappa 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I agree, please try to be more civil with your comments, Kappa. Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are morons, which seems to be how you are treating those of us who disagree with you. Also, I would say that the argument "well, here's what's being done to this other article" does not hold water due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which has already been cited here. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend actually reading and trying to understand policies instead of just remembering the names. You will notice that we have made some great progress in clarifying Sidato's rationale for deletion via this comparison. Kappa 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though Kappa may be less than eloquent in his presentation of his arguments, I believe he does raise good points. The list is far easier for readers to navigate than the categories, and after all, isn't Wikipedia ultimately for the reader, and not for the editors? Wikipedia:Categories vs lists gives several advantages that lists have over categories, as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which also says that "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." WP:LISTCRUFT does not have consensus as policy nor guideline, and so does not represent a consensus to delete articles which it may describe. Nevertheless I fail to understand why this particular list even would be considered "listcruft". What exactly does it mean "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list"? Are you saying there is no possible use for a list of notable chefs? If that were true then Category:Chefs would be just as useless. "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable"? How many notable chefs do you think there are? How many makes a list of them "unlimited" or "unmaintainable"? 500? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Quick, using Category:Chefs, approximately how many articles about chefs exist on Wikipedia? Is it more or less than whatever magic number would make a list "unlimited" or "unmaintainable"? Since most gastronomes are probably also chefs, it makes sense to me to include them on this list, but even if not, that's an argument to create a separate List of gastronomes, or to include such a list in the Gastronomy article. Do you really think there are more notable gastronomes than notable chefs? Even if the number of notable chefs were too large for one article, it could be split into several lists (e.g. sorted by region or food style) if need be. "The list has no content beyond links to other articles"? This is demonstrably false; even as the list existed when it was first nominated for deletion, many of the entries were annotated; and Kappa has made much improvement in this regard. Someday perhaps Wikipedia will have a MediaWiki extension such as Semantic MediaWiki or WikiDB to make it easier to maintain lists such as these; until then, I see no reason to delete such lists simply because they are easier to delete than to maintain. Over 150 editors have been working on this list for nearly 4 years; that demonstrates a WP:CONSENSUS that people are willing to maintain this list, and it shouldn't be overrided by a handful of arguments in a 5-day AfD. Improve, don't delete. There is no deadline. DHowell 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Better, but still not enough in my opinion. As demonstrated above, splitting the list results in several very tiny lists and two or three decent-sized lists. So, splitting at this juncture doesn't really make sense. Also, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Categories vs lists is also an essay, just like WP:LISTCRUFT. To discount one is to discount both. As to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it also states several disadvantages lists have to categories - most importantly in regard to size (A lengthy list may make a Wikipedia article longer than its recommended size) and maintenance (A full-fledged list (formatted, annotated, equipped with invisible links, etc.) would often require more maintenance effort than a category of comparable size.). A list with just one inclusion criteria - being a chef - will definitely require an inordinate amount of maintenance. As evidenced by the edit history you provided, it was very little more than just a list of links; only the Fictional Chef category was completely annotated, and those were just one-sentence blurbs.

Finally - if it's the consensus of the participating editors that this article is better maintained as a category, then that shouldn't be discounted either. After all, consensus can, and does, change. Sidatio 00:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum One more thing - it doesn't make sense to decry one essay with which you don't agrre and then quote several others because they represent your particular viewpoint. Sidatio 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the list results in one big list and two or three decent size lists. Kappa 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference between WP:LISTCRUFT and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is that the latter is neutral content which can be edited and improved by anyone whereas the former is POV which is OWNED by the author (nonetheless managing to trick certain clueless newbies into thinking it is a neutral guideline). Kappa 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very good (if not a little condescending, but what's new?), Kappa. However, if you'll note:
“ Also, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Categories vs lists is also an essay, just like WP:LISTCRUFT. To discount one is to discount both. ”
So, I can't see what you're going for with that statement. Sidatio 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. What you quoted from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is about potential disadvantages of categories which get too big, and which can be solved by splitting them when they reach that point. Kappa 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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.