Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese fried rice

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 keep. Pass the soy sauce. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese fried rice

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

Totally unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK; fully covered at Fried rice В²C ☎ 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article, as there seem to be a consensus that the Fried rice page supposed to be an overview about fried rice in general. (See this discussion.) It is also suggested that "If it's been hijacked to suggest that China is to be featured exclusively those edits should be reverted." If Chinese fried rice article should be deleted, and Fried rice article cannot feature Chinese fried rice exclusively, where can you encounter the detailed information about Chinese varieties of fried rice dishes? --Epulum (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation but the focus of the article does not have to be Chinese fried rice in order to adequately cover that topic. It can be a subsection of that article, along with other subsections about other popular specified types of fried rice. Look at the article on Meatball, for example. And reread WP:CONTENTFORK, in particular the conditions that warrant a WP:SPINOUT. These conditions are not present in this case. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other pages? Indonesian fried rice, Japanese fried rice, Korean fried rice, and Thai fried rice are separate articles. For me, it doesn't make sense that Japanese fried rice (which has its origin in Chinese fried rice!) can be an article, but Chinese fried rice can't. --Epulum (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. I just glanced at Indonesian fried rice. Surprisingly serious article. Well, if the plan for Chinese fried rice is to expand to something comparable, that's a different story. This nom is based on its current content, and the fact that Fried rice seems to be about Chinese fried rice. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, Indonesian Fried rice is just a redirect and it was created yesterday. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese fried rice is a newly created redirect as well. --В²C ☎ 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Indonesian fried rice and nasi goreng (literally "fried rice" in Indonesian) are the same thing. You can see what the search result of "Indonesian fried rice" looks like. The redirects are made because I was told "those looking for a specific country's variant, e.g. Korea's, can always type in "Korean fried rice" in the search box and be redirected to the appropriate target." in the teahouse and I agreed. --Epulum (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK. User:Born2cycle said it best here: "The WP:COMMONNAME for Chinese fried rice is 'fried rice' and Chinese fried rice is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'fried rice'". — AjaxSmack 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused. Are other (non-Chinese) 'fried rice' not 'fried rice'? --Epulum (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm not convinced that Chinese fried rice is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That notion seems to stem from a western worldview most familiar with Chinese fried rice. As other Asian cultures have their own pages for variations of fried rice, I would agree that so should the Chinese cuisine. Of course, this would need to be better distinguised in the respective Fried rice and Chinese fried rice pages if kept. --NoGhost (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per NoGhost.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_fried_rice_dishes#China where this is already covered. Apart from being a content fork, it is largely original research. There is nothing called "Chinese fried rice". The term is sometimes used an umbrella term in general parlance to refer to fried rice dishes of Chinese origin. Specific dishes such as Hokkien Fried Rice are sometimes colloquially referred to as "Chinese friend rice" due to the ethnic origin. But there is no formal definition in reliable sources. The article as of now essentially is partly OR and this can be safely covered at the redirect target mentioned. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has potential. Perhaps originating author should mark it as a WP:STUB? (I disagree both assertions "The WP:COMMONNAME for Chinese fried rice is 'fried rice' and Chinese fried rice is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'fried rice'". I think that would be WP:Systemic bias). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Lemongirl942. Essentially a WP:SYNTH or WP:MADEUP topic. In this case systemic bias has resulted in the creation of an essentially nonexistent topic. Countering systemic bias would be to delete this article. Saying "Chinese fried rice" is like saying Americans in the United States. f eminist 14:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: I don't follow you. There is rice (Rice). Some rice is fried (Fried rice). Some fried rice is cooked in a Chinese style (Chinese fried rice). Some fried rice is cooked in an Indonesian style (Nasi goreng). Some fried rice is cooked in an American style (apparently) (American fried rice). Not all fried rice is Chinese, or Chinese-style. Not all people in the United States are American. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "some fried rice is cooked in a Chinese style (Chinese fried rice)" is true but it is only an encyclopedic topic if that concept differs from or is held to be distinct from fried rice in reliable sources. Otherwise, it is a WP:SYNTH topic; see WP:NOTDIR #6. — AjaxSmack 20:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shhhnotsoloud, but American fried rice (called khao phat amerikan in Thai) is a type of khao phat (or Thai fried rice; but it means "fried rice" in Thai). --Epulum (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There seems little doubt that it is possible to create serious and well-cited articles on national varieties of fried rice (and many are listed at List of fried rice dishes), the Indonesian nasi goreng being a clear instance. The parent article, fried rice ought therefore to have sections for each major national cuisine that includes varieties of the dish, but that's an issue for that article's editors, not this AfD. The remaining question is whether there are enough fried rice dishes in Chinese cuisine to justify a subsidiary article on the topic. The list article's entry for China has Canton (or Wui Fan 燴飯) rice; Hokkien (or Fujian) fried rice; Yin Yang Fried Rice; and Yeung chow (or Yangzhou) fried rice. An internet search discovers recipes for Chinese chicken, pork, egg, vegetable and lup chong (sausage) fried rice dishes, though prawn/shrimp is said to be inauthentic at least in its Western form. That should be enough to support a reasonable article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to fried rice. That is admittedly my preference, but I think this content would be better placed on one big article than on many tiny small ones that repeat themselves a lot. Blythwood (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The claim that Chinese varieties are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the fried rice requires some rationales. I don't see any. --SunYating (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see that this is counter-intuitive. However, fried rice as we know it in western countries is often not Chinese fried rice, even when we call it "Chinese" fried rice or order it at a so-called "Chinese" restaurant. An article about the origins of fried rice in China, how it is traditionally prepared and how it is prepared today is of interest, and is notable enough to have a separate article. Fried rice has so many variations that it bears dividing into separate articles, such as nasi goreng, chahan (food) and so on, including this article, and this approach is likely to produce more comprehensive coverage of the subject. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it requires considerable expansion in Chinese fried rice article. It desperately need elaborations in the aspects of history, ingredients and variants. Plus the fried rice umbrella article should be written in more global perspective by putting less emphasis in Chinese elements (moved this to Chinese fried rice as has been done by Epulum). Both articles; Chinese fried rice and fried rice obviously need more references. Gunkarta talk 21:42, 17 March 2017 (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.