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. Sandstein 05:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, siling mahaba is Long pepper in English, like it's direct translation from Filipino.--JL 09q?c 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article's creator I am unaware of any evidence to support the assertion they are one and the same. I've tried to look up sources and couldn't find any. From what I've read of banana peppers in the past the name is often misapplied to other peppers too such as the hungarian wax pepper. I don't think the one nominating for deletion has put in the effort to verify his claim that they are the same. Can the one challenging the article show that the siling labuyo is a banana pepper and not a hungarian wax pepper for example? Lambanog (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love Fillipino culture and food. However WP is not a dictionary of the the Fillipino language and what people call various peppers there is way beyond its intended scope. BTW are these various kinds of peppers different species? If so each should have its own article under its scientific name. If they are cultivars of one species then probably notable peppers in the English speaking world could have their own articles. Fillipino names for peppers could maybe be slipped into an article on Fillipino food. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Northwestgnome. In the first place, Wikipedia is not a collection of translation of several names that were supposed to be in English. Second, this is the English encyclopedia. It is more expected to see English names here (you cannot see an article entitled Bangus, even though bangus is more popular in the Philippines than the milkfish term). Third, I am afraid that it is an original research that has no sources. Finally, I believe that we cannot request for reliable source regarding my stand, especially that the article concerned has no reference/s in the first place. Chili articles are named in English fashion. As I stated in another AFD discussion regarding a variant of this translation articles, if the scientific community has disputes in taxonomy, we, in Wikipedia cannot settle it down based on nebulosity or curiosity or just by how it is called in this language or so.--JL 09q?c 15:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prove that it is a translation. Point to any reliable source that says they are what you claim they are. Part of the reason I created the article is because of claims such as you are making that aren't based on anything reliable that I can find. If they are the same no problem. Prove it. But I see nothing from you showing they are except what you think they are. Northwestgnome is relying on your unsourced unfounded assertion. It would be like claiming a donut is the same thing as a bagel---see the hole in the middle. No reliable source I know of claims that siling haba is the same as the banana pepper and the nominator has yet to provide proof to back his claim. Until that is established any claim that siling mahaba is just a translation is without basis.
By the way if you want a reference, I can provide one as to the existence of the siling mahaba. But then I must ask are you disputing the siling haba on the basis of notability or are you willing to stipulate that the siling haba is notable? If you wish I will bring up the matter at Tambayan Philippines. Do I really need to get confirmation that siling haba is indeed a common ingredient in many Filipino dishes? Lambanog (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For non-Filipinos' sake, yes. We need to define that it is a common spice in the Philippines. Next, "While packing some heat it is much milder and less hot than siling labuyo." is indeed dubious especially that other chili articles are designed in a way that they were classified by their hotness strength so and so. Then, "one of two common kinds of native chili found in the Philippines". Is it true that there are only two species of chili native in the Philippines?--JL 09q?c 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes two kinds in general. Do you know of others? Also are you seriously saying that you disagree with the assertion "While packing some heat it is much milder and less hot than siling labuyo."??? The siling labuyo was once considered by some the hottest chili pepper in the world. I can understand you saying the article needs a citation here and there for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar but calling the assertion dubious for anyone who knows the subject is just ridiculous and is mirrored by this AfD. If you have problems with lack of references put a reference tag. Going to AfD, however, seems to indicate a rather dubious happy-go-lucky attitude with deletion. Lambanog (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard a lot of chili pepper articles should be deleted. If there are more specific species than annuum, frutescens, chinense, baccatum, and pubescens please identify them. Currently the entire field of chili peppers is not being classified according to scientific taxonomy. They are being classified according to cultivar and popular terminology. It's nebulous at best. The siling mahaba is used by more people than some of the more esoteric peppers that get articles. There is no evidence to suggest it is the same as peppers mentioned elsewhere. If you can find something from a reliable source, please do. I'd be curious to know. Lambanog (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon that siling mahaba is already classified in taxonomy, isn't it? Where is it's scientific name? Can you justify that that is another species of Capsicum annuum?
You simply prove my point that siling haba deserves its own article because a clear accurate definition of it is not readily available. Let me go down your list of sources and show the glaring inconsistencies:
[3] Your first source and most authoritative source claims it s a Louisiana long pepper. Apparently this contradicts your earlier assertion that it is a banana pepper.
[4] Your second source says capsicum annuum var. longum and little else.
[5] Your third source calls it a long pepper or Spanish pepper. So is it a Louisiana long pepper and is a Louisiana long pepper the same as a Spanish pepper?
[6] Your Spanish fourth source seems to call the siling habaapimiento rojo. Perform a search on pimiento rojo and it seems that it translates to "red pepper". So no that seems inaccurate.
[7] Your last source lumps the siling haba together with the siling labuyo and calls them cayenne—which is the equivalent of saying a tabasco pepper and a serrano are cayenne.
So five sources and five different answers that do not support your assertion except for maybe that siling haba is in capsicum annuum var. longum but hey we probably could have guessed that from the start because siling haba translates to "long chili". My point still stands: no reliable source presented says this is a banana pepper and even if one could be found in the future there would seem to be conflict with other sources. 1 edit. Additions. Lambanog (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I changed my notion right above. Even the Wikipedia article on Cayenne pepper says that it is still a Capsicum annuum. Isn't Louisiana long pepper a member of the long pepper family? Didn't I say that siling haba a member of longum?
If so, what are your reliable sources then to prove my belief that you did not made an original research? At least a scientific name of siling mahaba would be better to create mahaba's spin-out in Wikipedia. For the Spanish reading, a close look on the paragraph: the paragraph says variations of how chili is called on different languages. It came that it mentioned siling-haba and the pimiento rojo mentioning suggests adjective. Have you seen a red siling haba? No?--JL 09q?c 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically speaking if someone was to create an encyclopedia article about tomatoes that did not yet exist would you jump on it and nominate the article for deletion if a reference wasn't given? Without a reference do you think the statement "tomatoes are commonly colored red" constitutes original research? Some of the comments you are making sink to that level of absurdity. Your approach to AfD is probably the kind that causes many contributors to turn away in disgust because of its petty officious bureaucratic hairsplitting.
This entire discussion so far illustrates why siling mahaba requires its own article. Long pepper redirects to a plant of piper longum that is not siling mahaba. Long chili is an overly general vague term. Capsicum annuum var. longum is also a vague term. From what I've seen of the taxonomic nomenclature relating to chili peppers I suspect the terminology probably dates back to Carolus Linnaeus himself with little if any modification. It's basically saying "long chili" in taxonomic terms. If one says siling haba, however, the chili being talked about is very clear: it is the commonly bright greenish finger chili commonly found in the Philippines. If one is going to insist that it be classified according to taxonomic classification then I would point out that retaining independent subjects for a wide swath of chili pepper varieties becomes dubious. I would argue all chili peppers should also then be reclassified: tabasco, serrano, jalapeno, bell, pablano, habanero, nagas, african birdseyes, datils, etc. —all should be folded into their taxonomic classifications. Lambanog (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it still seems to me that you need reliable information on what siling mahamba is, not just what it is not. If it can be shown that it is a distinct breed, not found outside of the Phillipines, then it should have its own article. If it is just a name for a common type of pepper then it should not. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be shown that siling mahaba is merely a local name for a common type of pepper so be it. But the onus is on those advocating deletion to prove that claim. What the siling mahaba is is found in the article. I do not think anything in that article would be considered disputable by anyone familiar with the siling mahaba, merely unreferenced. Claims that the name is just a translation are external to the article. I can understand why someone might want references added but deletion is an extreme and unfounded measure. To put things in context would you consider it acceptable if I nominated the article jalapeno for deletion simply because the sources don't seem to qualify as reliable? Someone unfamiliar with the jalapeno might conclude it is just a local Mexican name since it doesn't sound English. Lambanog (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we shouldn't be absurd on blaming history of taxonomy and inconsistencies of their naming in justifying loops and turnabouts that would conceive deceive other editors. Let us make straight to the point. Siling mahaba is the Filipino term for long pepper. look at their similarities by picture. Please do not quote other information that aren't useful. Like what Northwestgnome said, please give the scientific name of siling mahaba if there is.--JL 09q?c 15:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only person here who seems to be trying to deceive anyone is you. JL09: "Siling mahaba is the Filipino term for long pepper. look at their similarities by picture." I'm looking at the article long pepper and they don't look alike at all. You were closer with the banana pepper although still no cigar. "Long pepper" is a vague term. Siling mahaba is a far more precise term. Is it better to call a serrano pepper a red pepper? Are you in favor of reclassifying all the pepper varieties by their taxonomic classification? Then why aren't you nominating tabasco pepper, serrano pepper, jalapeno pepper, etc. for transfer? Be consistent at least. Lambanog (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Lambanog, don't take this nomination personally. I am not deceiving anyone. We are asking for reliable source regarding the claims. First, I was the one who nominated this article for this deletion. Then, you came up defending the allegations. Now, you are taking this too personal. I thought you were trying to correct taxonomic deficiencies, now you're pointing me that I am the one doing it? We're just asking for the scientific name of the siling mahaba, because we cannot verify your claims. Strength comparison seems vague. No? I presented my findings that siling mahaba is an annuum, you haven't shown any counter evidence. Now you are telling me that I am in favor of nominating huge stuff of article? By the way, what is the English equivalent of siling mahaba? I guess there is, because jalapeno, tabasco, serrano, though Spanish, are also considered names in English use. I am curious to know why you told us that var. longum is a vague term? (Isn't because it's Latin?) I want to remind you again that in Wikipedia, we have no power to correct or reclassify names validated or in dispute created by biology ("I would argue all chili peppers should also then be reclassified: tabasco, serrano, jalapeno, bell, pablano, habanero, nagas, african birdseyes, datils, etc. —all should be folded into their taxonomic classifications.").--JL 09q?c 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the disingenuous palaver. Concentrate on one thing and one thing only: prove the siling mahaba is merely the translation for another kind of pepper. Your entire claim for deletion revolves around that. If you cannot prove that withdraw this deletion attempt forthwith. Otherwise your claims of innocent motivation ring false. Lambanog (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This desperately needs sources; Let's get some of the referenced material into the article. . The major ingredients in a national cuisine normally do have descriptive names in the national language that are more precise than those used elsewhere. Similar or identical names in different areas do not necessarily refer to the same substance, so i think it much clear to not over-translate. Botanical classification is not necessarily of much help, as strain differences are critical--the various cultivars of a species can be extremely distinct in culinary properties. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently the tallying algorithm hasn't counted my comments so far as a keep yet. Lambanog (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (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.
