Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egg and chips

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, per WP:SNOWBALL. BorgQueen (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg and chips

merge or transwiki, This Wiki site is not a cookbook Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFD is not a grounds for suggesting merges or transwikiing. We have other forums and procedures for that. This is only for suggesting right out deletion. either way (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article that would be better served as a dictionary entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Cxz111 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To address the nominator's concern, this article doesn't give instructions for how to cook this dish, so saying that Wikipedia is not a cookbook doesn't apply here. If one of the world's top chefs says, "you can't get much more British a dish than fried egg and chips",[1] then I would have thought that this would be a notable dish. I must, however, disagree with the article writer on one point: it's much better to put the egg(s) on top of the chips and break the yolk to let it flow over them rather than dip the chips in the yolk. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. |Fences&Windows 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what possessed me, perhaps some misplaced national pride, but I've expanded this article from its initial state as a microstub to what is now hopefully a useful addition to Wikipedia. Egg and chips is a British working class icon. Fences&Windows 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopaedic, referenced, why not 龗 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable dish (but, Phil, you have to dip them!) and exactly the kind of article people love Wikipedia for. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Topic is notable and encyclopedic. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has now been rectified by F&A, and topic is notable and encyclopedic. Hell, this might even appear in DYK. Cheers. I'^mperator 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, original rationale applies no more. Punkmorten (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good save on the expansion. The picture is making me hungry... Geraldk (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough reliable sources there I think. Just because a meal is simple and humble doesn't mean it isn't notable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently notable dish, as evidenced by the numerous reliable sources. Food is an under-represented topic on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we really want dozens of articles created on random combinations of foods? Sources can easily be found for articles on "beans and chips", "sausages and chips", "peas and chips", "pie and chips", "sausage, beans and chips", "sausage, beans and mash", etc. Where do we draw the line? Cxz111 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We draw the line where we chose to, but mostly by whether we can demonstrate notability. Egg and chips isn't a random combination; as demonstrated in the article using reliable sources it is an iconic British working class meal. Fences&Windows 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was enriched by my reading of it and delighted to see that it was all sourced marvellously well. Who would have known such a simple meal would have so much potential... --can dle •wicke 03:42, 19 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.