Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Figgy pudding

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 no consensus to delete. An editorial solution appears possible. Sandstein 21:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figgy pudding[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Of the 7 sources, 5 make clear that "figgy" is a West Country dialect word for "raisins", and 1/3 of the paragraphs emphasises this. Source #2 is a dead link now and #1 is a short and misleading puff piece for a supermarket stocking Christmas puddings with figs in that doesn't even cite the supermarket. The line about the pudding's ancestors doesn't appear in the cited source. The article on the carol, which is how basically everyone is looking this up, states that figgy pudding is a raisin pudding much like modern christmas pudding and again has nothing to do with figs.

If you search figgy pudding now you'll get some recipes for christmas puddings including figs but I doubt that's notable in itself. I think the page should become a redirect to either Christmas pudding or We Wish You A Merry Christmas - I didn't want to do it immediately because on the surface it appears well cited. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christmas pudding per nom. FOARP (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks up the mediaeval names, the story appears somewhat different. There's the 1390 version of "fygey" from The Forme of Cury on ISBN 9781445648750 p.236 for example. Yes, it definitely contains figs, and it has been discussed in sources going back to the 19th century from a cursory check. It is worth checking whether there is actual history here. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear here I am definitely not an expert on this and so I'm not going to argue this especially, but mostly I just felt that the article as-is is misleading. Fygey appears to be quite different in nature to the pudding described by this article is all so even if fig puddings in general deserve an article it's not clear "figgy pudding" is actually related to a fig pudding from the sources. I appreciate that this is something that could use the input of an expert. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because you haven't read ISBN 9780866983570 pages 38 and 113, which tell you that "fygey" from The Forme of Cury 118 is fig pudding. ☺ And the book that I already pointed you to labels it "figgy pudding" right there in the heading, and explains that it is a simpler "ancestor" of the modern plum pudding. Don't go by some infomercial in the Daily Telegraph for this. Otherwise you'll miss out on the history of how "figee", originally fish and curds, got conflated into this in the 15th century alongside the names "ffygey", "fygee", and "figge" (ISBN 9781442233997 page 267). Other names for the same thing, per Thomas Austin (Two Fifteenth Century Cookery Books at the Internet Archive), are "Fyguade" and "Fyge to potage". The problem is that this is not a Christmas thing, despite the carol lyrics, nor is it a plum pudding. It is, in general terms, a dish made of figs. So a merger target would be somewhere where Wikipedia discusses the use of the common fig as a cooking ingredient, pointing out the ubiquity of it in Mediaeval recipes (ISBN 9780199253814 pages 61–62). Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not able to access those books so I completely defer to your knowledge. I'm sorry for making a mistake on this. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 23:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries. If those infomercials were all that one had to go on, I can understand questioning the notability of the subject. Fortunately, there's more. Personally, I think that this is enough for a section in common fig#Food with a redirect from here to that section. Of course, that section has not been written yet. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not propose deletion and AfD is not cleanup. Uncle G indicates that there's something to the topic and so it should be left to develop in accordance with our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: - he's recommending it be redirected, but feels it would be controversial. As such AfD is a legitimate action, and a better route than Blank and Redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I think this should be merged into common fig#Food (hence the slightly unusual introduction). Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2019 (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.