Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken 65

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. None of the delete !voters here, including the nom, have provided any policy based reasons for deleting this article. Bwilkins's concern about SYNTH is valid but this may be corrected through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Chicken 65

Chicken 65 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Wikipedia is not a Recipe site Mandrake00 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete; however, there is no recipe here. Just puffery, which is a reason to delete. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete No suggestion of notability; almost a recipe; a history/SYNTH about chicken (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom and Jeremy. Consists largely of unverified synthesis. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do not Delete [eyal]. I have not seen a single reason for deletion so far. I've lived in south oof India for 2 years, and chicken 65 was a great dish to eat. wiki can always help people who want to know what is chiken 65 without giving a recipe. Is wiki a recipe book? definitely not. went to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb and tried making an atomic bomb based on wiki, but there is no recipe there as well. let's delete this link too.

now seriously. No need to be fanatic. let people enjoy having some info about this dish without having the perfect details about it. and if you do what to make that good, insead of looking for the negative way, take the positive way and complete the missing parts yourselves. add links to other sites about this dish, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalmela (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete No matter how delicious this chicken may be, it is not notable. I prefer duck most of the time, anyway :D Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Took another look at the article, and I am going to change my vote to neutral Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
• Fix this article and keep it. This article is certainly written in the wrong style, but underneath the puffy language is content about an apparently notable Hyderabad dish. Some of the sources already contained in the article provide hints of this, and GBooks and GNews turn up firmer discussions of the cultural history and significance of the dish--see e.g. [1][2][3][4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep In a weak, benefit-of-the-doubt way. Article has issues and needs editing/attention. Item of cuisine seems to have plenty of mentions in reliable sources, although little in-depth coverage. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, but this food doesn't seem to be any less notable than hundreds of other food items covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink.  Tigerboy1966  22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I have added references to the article from India's national newspapers. This link - an article in Times of India (India's biggest daily) proves notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable chicken dish, numerous references. Needs to be edited further, not deleted -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir (talk • contribs)

• Keep - Referencing added to the article demonstrates coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

*Delete or Redirect No claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep After looking up other food related articles, I realized that this article is actually better in condition than most others. JDDJS (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Where would you suggest it be redirected to? And what of the sourcing in the article. That certainly amounts to a claim to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

***Comment I guess it can be redirected to Fried Chicken. The sources in the article just refer to how it got its name. That is not enough to show that it deserves its own page. If it were to be expanded to include more sourced information besides its name, I will change my vote to a keep. JDDJS (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)h

• Keep - The article indisputably needs work, but seems to be notable on the level of comparable articles on the same general topic (Indian food). MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete What is 65!? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

65 of Chicken 65 denotes that for every kilo of chicken - 65 chillies were used. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Quite a famous dish. Have seen it on many menu cards and boards on dhabas. Plus the current condition of article has many references too. Notable enough and notability proved too through coverage. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved since the initial nomination, and contains enough third party sources to establish the notability of this particular dish. Rorshacma (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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.