Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crow stew

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crow stew

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources that the dish really exists. The Banner talk 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being considered for deletion on two counts: 1) lack of notability and 2) "no reliable sources." Regarding the first count, I would argue that crow stew is as notable as other stews listed on Wikipedia. It's certainly at least as notable as Booyah. A quick Google search for "Crow stew recipe" yields many crow stew recipes. In fact, it yields more recipes than Booyah stew.

The article also passes the test for deletion on the second count, since Willow Creek Press' publication titled "Eat Like a Wild Man" (ISBN 1572230886) is a credible source.

--Jvanek01 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX; the fact that other stuff exists is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Notability is established for this stew and this stew alone; the presence or absence of other stews on Wikipedia has absolutely no relevance to whether or not crow stew is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to address the concerns raised in this discussion, I’ve updated the article and included extensive research on the topic. --Jvanek01 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Non-notable dish that had an article created in response to a talk-show mention. Only passing mentions in sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article was created only after “crow stew” had been mentioned on a talk show should not be cause for deletion.--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is, because it was a clear invitation to create the article. The Banner talk 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I can tell, creating an article after the topic had been mentioned on a television show, or other popular media, does not violate Wikipedia’s rules for creating articles. The argument is also illogical (it’s another form of an ad hominem). The article should be judged on its content; not the inspiration for its creation. The fact that the inspiration for the article had come from this source, as opposed to another, does not give the subject any less credibility. We don’t give less weight to gravity (pun intended) because Newton’s inspiration for the theory had supposedly come from him being hit on the head by a falling apple.--Jvanek01 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established notoriety in Prince Achille Murat account from the 1820’s. The account that Murat served "crow stew" to his guests is recorded in multiple sources. A sour-cream based recipe for the dish “crow stew” appears in several publications from the 1930’s, including the journals Outdoor Indiana and Nebraskaland. A very similar recipe (also sour-cream-based) is reproduced in Rebecca Gray's Eat Like a Wild Man (1997). A technique for cooking "crow stew" is described by Chassagnard in the Dictionary of French Cuisine. These sources are now cited in the article. Based on the multiple sources, most referring to a sour-cream-based dish with crow meat, I believe crow stew to be a real dish (regardless of the fact that it was mentioned on tv).--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mix up "the recipe exists" with "being notable". The Banner talk 12:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’ve actually never equated the existence of the recipe to its notability, nor have I used the phrase "the recipe exists", as your quote suggests. You’ve built a straw man. The fact that essentially the same sour-cream-based recipe (not typical of most stews) for the dish exists in multiple sources, and can be traced to the 1930’s, is yet further evidence (in addition to the other historical evidence I provided above) that this very specific “dish really exists,” contradictory to your claim that it did not.--Jvanek01 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe crow stew isn't something a Michelin star-winning chef would make, but surely it is a notable dish with our beloved hill folk in America. Please don't discriminate against those with less teeth than you. This is a direct violation of WP:DISCRIMINATION policy (protected category: culture), "Offering deletion of articles, categories and other content in Wikipedia on base of discrimination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissibeth (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Crissibeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Ah, a good laugh is always welcome! You have indeed a good sense of humour! The Banner talk 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable dish which has been around for quite some time now, even getting coverage for being served by a prince over a century ago. We need a guideline page for foods since this does come up at times for food related articles, such as those found in Category:stews and category:foods. Dream Focus 15:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a notable article with reliable inline citations Keep!--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Esta comida nunca falta en un asado argentino.Florencia peña video hot senscape (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)— Florencia peña video hot senscape (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The second SPA. Something fishy is going on... The Banner talk 10:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conan fans, no doubt. Theoretically this dish could be notable, but the book and newspaper sources I am finding are mostly passing mentions. There's a comical background to the whole idea of it.[1]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now reliable sources addressing WP:GNG. The content largely avoids WP:NOTGUIDE and puts it in line with other disk articles. Perhaps it is more obscure a dish, but notability is decided in the independent and reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my !vote following the article improvement - nice work; it's barely notable, but notable it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 4 February 2013 (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.