Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese dog

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 August 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Nominator's concerns seems to be addressed. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese dog

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

No sources, no citations and shouldn't be given its own page Gorgak25 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to hot dog variations. 101.172.127.242 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its title that article claims to be a list of regional variations. Is the cheese dog a regional variation? I'm not convinced it's notable, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Because Carolina dog and Cincinnati coney are notable. This is somewhat of a list article, so GNG doesn't apply per se, although I am relatively confident it could pass GNG anyway p b p 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Hot dog: Insufficienct notability for a stand-alone article. Any material here worth saving can be summarized in a sentence or two at most in the main Hot dog article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is this above !vote based upon a search for sources regarding the topic's notability, or is it your personal opinion about the topic, or based upon the article's state at the time of the nomination? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, this nomination does not have a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - to hot dog. Non notable version of a hot dog. The only reference is passing mention. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Please read WP:NRVE. Are you stating that the only reference available on the entire internet is a passing mention? Probably not. This is why WP:NRVE exists, to distinguish between topic notability based upon the availability of sources versus the faulty notion of topic notability being based upon sources that may or may not exist in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you're saying that "Cheese dog" is non-notable, you're also saying that all types of cheese dog (including ones that don't include "cheese" in the title) are non-notable. Can you be sure of that? p b p 00:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that sources must provide in depth coverage, which the source used when I looked at the article did not do. Also, the number of source do not establish notability, it is the quality of the sources. The sources provided at the time only established verifiability. Whether or not you or I think it is notable, you must provide the required quality sources that establish notability and my merge comment reflects the state of the article at the time I viewed it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The provided sources still do not do it. These are all reviews, passing mentions or recipes taht only show that the thing exists. There is nothing in the new "References" that provide the required depth of coverage required to keep this as a stand alone article.

Comment – The article is in the process of being expanded. More sources have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination statement is utterly invalid - it says nothing about whether subject is notable. Under nominator's rationale, we could delete huge swaths of wikipedia, including many articles on innumerable notable subjects. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, put some effort into it by God.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the concern of the nominator was that the article was unsourced now this problem was adressed. I don't see other reasons for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just needs some cleanup and improving. The nominator's reason states unsourced, but now there's sources, and "shouldn't be given its own page"? WP:BELONG (or WP:UNENCYC) may apply. Zappa O Mati 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on all the great work done to the article, which now has about half a dozen good references. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 5 August 2012 (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.