Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken filets Sadi Carnot

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 delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken filets Sadi Carnot

NN dish. -- Y not? 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't Sadi Carnot one of our admins? Maybe this is actually a news headline, not a recipe. They probably got the chicken angry on another AfD - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahh yes, I remember my nephew Marie cooking that dish many moons ago! What a wonderful aroma it had. --Sadi Carnot 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot is a French name -- Y not? 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, the famous French mathematician and politician Lazare Carnot (1753-1823) had two sons: Sadi Carnot (1796-1832) and Hippolyte Carnot (1801-1888), and the latter had a famous son named Marie François Sadi Carnot, only I don’t know what his common shortened name is? The name "Sadi" stems from the Persian poet Sadi of Shiraz, a name which Lazare attached to the name of his first son. --Sadi Carnot 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn dish. Zero sources, not even an internet recipe: the sum of ghits for all three suggested titles is 4. Smells like something the chef mentioned made up one day. MER-C 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the information will not be deleted, as it's verifiable and will be placed elsewhere if deleted here. Inability to find a reference on the Internet makes it historical, not non-existent. I think it's best treated separately. Nunh-huh 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems yummy (I am hungry now, I don't thank you) but I fail to see how it is notable. Redirect to Charles Ranhofer? -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some AfDs are much more entertaining than others. However, this one should go because there are no reliable sources, a very prosaic reason, but one that we are obliged to follow, regardless of the wonderful aroma noted above. I am only sorry that I did not get a chance to vote on Mythical chickens. EdJohnston 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a source: The Epicurean. A Complete Treatise of Analytical and Practical Studies on the Culinary Art Including Table and Wine Service, How to Prepare and Cook Dishes, an Index for Marketing, a Great Variety of Bills of Fare for Breakfasts, Luncheons, Dinners, Suppers, Ambigus, Buffets, etc., and a Selection of Interesting Bills of Fare of Delmonico's, from 1862 to 1894. Making a Franco-American Culinary Encyclopedia, New York, 1894, p. 591. But because certain people were unable to find it on the Internet (though it is readily available at [1]), they've chosen to assert it was "made up" and that the Wikipedia would be better off (somehow) without this information.-Nunh-huh 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no less notable than many other dish/recipe articles. Johnbod 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep..I feel the information is best treated as a stub article rather than incorporated elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this juicy bit of culture. Congratulations to Nunh-huh for his superb sourcing. We need Tournedos Rossini too. Stammer 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really Incredibly Weak delete. No question it exists, but one, there's only an assertion of notability (no real verification and lack of WP:RS, though), and two, I always thought that concensus was that most articles resembling recipies are best put on Wikibooks? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a recipe (as I think you'd find if you tried to prepare it using only the article). The article is linked from the chef's article and from the list of dishes named for famous people. The alternative to having the information in one place accessed by both of these is to place it in each of the articles linked to it. I think maintaining it as a separate short article is preferable. - Nunh-huh 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'commentIt's not worth an article by itself, but it may fit into a group of recipes not just named after a famous person, but outrageously expensive dishes named after a well-known millionaire, diplomat,etc. Count the truffles. DGG 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. Vegaswikian 02:00, 4 May 2007 (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.