Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plums in chocolate

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. No support for an outright delete, and about 50/50 on keep vs. merging to either of a couple different targets. Looking at Polish_cuisine (the more likely merge target), it seems like virtually all dishes listed there also have their own articles, so I guess it makes sense this should too. Damn, now I'm hungry; everything in that article looks so good. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plums in chocolate[edit]

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

While I can confirm that this is a real type of candy, I cannot find anything to justify keeping this article on grounds of Wikipedia:Notability. References in the article, and on the Internet, confirm this food exists - but they mention it either in passing, as an advertisement, or as a recipe. I don't think that's enough for us to keep this. PS. Ping User:Northamerica1000. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish cuisine and include in List of Polish desserts. Like the nominator, I can't find anything by way of significant coverage enough to justify a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 09:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Polish cuisine~~. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in light of more sources found. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polish_cuisine#Desserts_.26_sweets. While of the opinion that śliwka nałęczowska have been the most delicious sweets ever tasted (I thought made in Kraśnik rather than Lublin but it was a long time ago), I don't see sources to support a standalone article. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep why should this be merged? It is a high notable subject. A very popular and distinctive polish dessert. See Chocolate covered cherry for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Candleabracadabra: I searched for sources in Google Books and in news searches, but only found passing mentions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many Polish books are there on Google BOoks? It's discussed here on this blog. How is the subject treated on Polish Wikipedia? There seem to be several notable confectioners who produce this item. It should be covered in some way more than just a mention in the cuisine article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources on Google Books here. Substituting prune for plum seems to do the trick and the fruit does in fact seem to be dried. Even in English it is noted as a significant and traditional Polish dessert. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The topic is not discussed on Polish wikipedia. 2) Blogs are rarely reliable. 3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, and I am afraid all you achieved is to make me prod the Chocolate covered cherry as clearly failing WP:N (one blog reference...) 4) I am not seeing any good sources even when searching for prunes; at best I see one which mentions this type of candy in Poland in a passing note. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge to the newly created Chocolate-covered fruit article might be worth considering. I can't see any case for deletion of a significant subject noted in numerous sources as being significant and traditional . Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that this topic would have some notability, but please, add some good references to it. Otherwise per WP:V we will have to nominate it for deletion, too (and I think it would be a shame, as I said, I think that more general topic may be notable, and it would be a good place to merge this and some other related articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Candleabracadabra, mentioned sources which pass WP:GNG, here are some more sources BBC and NPR. There are more sources, but those two reliable, notable sources. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:GNG this is a keep. I would also like to note the blatant disregarded of WP:PRESERVE by Piotrus when he tagged Chocolate covered cherry. To clarify WP:N does not fail when the article is only cited by one source. It fails if you are unable to find more. Please be more careful next time. Valoem ^talk 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about whether recipe sites like this are notable at WT:FOOD at WP:RSN. I'll say again that existence of few sites with recipes doesn't seem to justify WP:GNG/WP:PRODUCT for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - if there's not enough sources to take this past the stub stage, it shouldn't be a standalone article (per WP:STUB) Ibadibam (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added citations from NPR and New York Times to merit standalone article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:09, 30 March 2014 (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.