Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature dish

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 as a week gas not suggested anything else and there are no serious concerns (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature dish

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

Article has been tagged for verifiability and original research for over 6 years now with no significant improvements. Was also PROD'ed back in 2008 but removed. Article is nothing more than a definition of a term violating WP:NOTDIC and doesn't seem to meet any WP:GNG guidelines. SanAnMan (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly good stub, blatantly notable, not in any way a candidate for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many reliable sources which mention this term turn up in the various gSearches. But isn't it really a dictionary definition? See, for example the entry for the term here: BRAND sense: Sensory Secrets Behind the Stuff We Buy (2008); Martin Lindstrom; Simon and Schuster; Page 31; ISBN 9781439103456 ; found here. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dish (food). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. Redirecting to dish wouldn't help readers at all, as the term isn't defined. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is worth an encyclopedic entry. Signature dishes, signature moves, signature models etc are all symbolic of a particular genre/trait. With close to a thousand hits on Google Scholar, I think this is a no-brainer. Lourdes 09:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, almost all of those GHits are examples of the style, nothing to prove encyclopedic worth. Again, you're proving my point, this is a definition of a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. You missed a line in my comment above. It's not the definition which is the key, it's the genre/trait/era that the signature dish defines that is more important. And that obviously cannot be described in a dictionary definition. That's why I gave Google Scholar references and not Google references. Certain signature dishes define the era of a particular time, and certain ones describe a whole culture. How can one encompass all that in a dictionary? That would require an encyclopedia. And this is it. Lourdes 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or transwiki to Wiktionary If it can be demonstrated that this term has widespread use in its area of interest, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a meaningful concept, which therefore makes it more than a dictionary entry, which is just for a word. There are sufficient sources available--probably hundreds more could be found. A redirect or merge to "dish" is ludicrous and is a misreading of the article. User:DGG

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.