Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese pudding

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. After the rewrite consensus is that the article is valid and notable enough for an article. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese pudding

Delete per "Wikipedia is not a how-to" NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apart from being a how-to guide, the bullet points are copied from the url in the lone footnote. Cliff smith ^talk 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tasty Delete. Although the creator did try to give a historical background, the substance of the article is a how-to. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, but still a how-to recipe-article beneath it all. Existence is shown, as it was previously, but I can not see notability. There are four references to cookbooks/newspaper columns, which is basically what the article was originally just now with four different peoples opinions hidden away on other sites. There doesn't appear to be anything special about those particular recipes (being American-old is not terribly relevant unless it was invented in America). Also the journal article which is linked is quite incidental - that article is about fructose, and they just happened to used cheese pudding, amongst other things, as a delivery method. It would be a good reference for the fructose article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks - it could have some use there though. Green caterpillar (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Oh dear Lord, do I have to do what I did to Macaroni soup? If you don't like the tone of an article or the content is not appropriate, fix it. This is a notable subject with many WP:RS- with 509 google news references, [1] 625 google books references, [2] with 89 references on google scholar, [3] which indicates discussions in more depth. See the first edit to macaroni soup for an even worse initial article. We have numerous food stubs, so this is an acceptable topic which needn't even be much longer, see Verrine and Caraway seed cake. Give me half an hour at least to reemove dodgy content. Sticky Parkin 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite Sticky Parkin's assertion, Google hits do not make a subject notable. Most of the hits you got were most likely recipes or cookbooks. There isn't enough to suggest that the subject is actually notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people at AfD sometimes realise, that may be true for a basic google search that brings up all websites, this is why people think something like this isn't notable and a google search doesn't count, but if you use google news, books and scholar, the result is most of the WP:RS for decades or even centuries, including the New York Times, mentions from the 1930s and so on, and google scholars gives you all the mentions such as by a dietetics association, and medical stuudies. That's what we mean by notability when it comes to anything or particularly a food, as with all the dozens or hundreds of food stubs we have. Anyway it now has six references, and is concentrating on the sweet dish with this name. Someone else can go through the hundreds of references which are left to be read through and add other information if you want, I think I've done my bit lol:) Although I may do more tomorrow. Sticky Parkin 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has an article in both The New York Times and The Los Angles Times. These are very reliable sources, and are independent of the subject. The article does seem to focus on the composition of the dish, but it is a food article, after all. In any case, this isn't a problem that is drastic enough to require deletion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think enough of an effort is being put in now to prove notability doktorb _words^deeds 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WB - The cookery section there would be MORE than happy to have this listing. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Sticky Parkin made a good case about data mining on google and has found enough mentions to make it noteworthy. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment give me a few days and I'll try and make one of these puddings so the article has a pic:) I hope you all have looked at the article and think its a bit better than how it began. It's a food stub, with several refs more than they normally have lol:) Sticky Parkin 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pic is up:) Sticky Parkin 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten version. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well referenced article which, in its current condition, is nothing like a "how-to guide". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yum, keep! This article is in fine condition, is not especially how-toish and has a good picture and historical background. Yummy! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:08, 6 September 2008 (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.