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. Though the majority of comments here are saying "keep", the article is unsourced, and no sources can be found for such a dish. I am convinced by the argument that Khatta merely means "sour" as that is what my research indicates. For example - Dhokla may be prepared "Khatta dhokla". When an article is brought to AFD it should only be kept if there is some evidence that it is correct. This article is speculative at best, incorrect at worse. SilkTork *YES! 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khatta[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. I have searched, and have seen no evidence of coverage giving Khatta any more status than a rather mundane dish. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret now having deleted most of this article. In its original form it was an obvious delete as a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. I decided to delete all the "how to" information, which was the body of the article, and propose the rest for deletion as essentially vacuous. However, as for the article in its present state, and the arguments advanced above:

Certainly "a Google search returns some results", but even if it returned thousands of results, that would not be evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense unless at least some of them were significant coverage by reliable independent sources. I have not found any of them which could remotely be called significant coverage. As for "while the existence of another article isn't reason to justify a subject": exactly, so why mention it? I had no idea there was a Google article on Chicken salad: now that I do know I think it is as pointless as the article on Khatta, but even if I thought it was more pointless (as Peridon does), the existence of one would not justify the existence of the other. Summary: neither Google hits nor the existence of another equally bad article constitutes notability in Wikipedia's sense, so we have yet to have a single argument in favour of keeping based on Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if I was twisting your words, but I honestly don't see that I was. The article is proposed for deletion on the grounds of there being no evidence of notability. You say we should keep it, which presumably means you think there is evidence of notability. The only fact which you give to support this view is the existence of Google hits to pages which you say "aren't exactly reliable". I pointed out that the existence of Google hits does not establish notability unless they constitute substantial cover. How am I twisting your words? I don't see it. It is perhaps also worth pointing out that pages which aren't reliable are completely irrelevant anyway, whether substantial or not. Under Wikipedia policy "there are a few Google hits but none of them is reliable" is not an argument for keeping an article, weak or otherwise.
As for assuming good faith, I certainly did: I thought you were mistaken in your understanding of what "notability" means in Wikipedia, but I had (and still have) no reason to doubt that you were acting in good faith. I apologise if something in the way I expressed myself seemed to indicate otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you James, for explaining your views. What I meant was that I'm not saying that the number of Google hits establishes notability. I was basically just saying that I could find sources on them, but I wasn't sure whether they were reliable. Anyway, I think we should leave this for now. Happy editing! JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Khatta does mean sour or tangy. However, many Indian dishes can take on the taste as the primary name, this is probably the case here. I don't really have an opinion on food articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to vote on this, but if it is kept, the article should probably be expanded to reflect that Khatta is the taste, and then list eponymous dishes and/or dishes that have it as an adjective. I can take a basic stab at it later (likely, only if it's kept). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article indicates "tangy" and here it says it literally means "sour". I've had khatta channa and khatta meetha. Drawn Some (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Khatta in many Indian languages means "sour". I guess it is also used to indicate "tangy" as there is no distinct word for tangy(not that I know of ). Kala khatta is a syrupy flavouring. Mostly used in a thirst quencher called "gola"(blob) made of compressed ice shavings.Something similar to a ice pop--Deepak D'Souza 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "khatta aloo" and Khatta aren't the same. You will find the word khatta used frequently in names of Indian dishes to indicate the taste. The Khatta being discussed here is a soup not the taste. And the google hits that we get are not necessarily to this dish mentioned in the article.--Deepak D'Souza 04:05, 8 June 2009 (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.
More