Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaroni soup

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The result was Nomination withdrawn per recent edits. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macaroni soup[edit]

A {{hangon}} template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. No apparent notability. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, seemingly failing WP:N - can we add "...a recipe book" to What wikipedia is not? - Toon⁰⁵ 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. All I'm finding is recipe sites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good work, people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails as WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Toon, TenPoundHammer, and Esradekan. Cliff smith ^talk 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. Cliff smith ^talk 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously, who would read an article on Macaroni soup??--EZ1234 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's chicken soup with elbow macaroni as the noodles. Not very inspired. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would also add Mami Soup to the list. -- azumanga (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds tasty but Wikipedia is not a recipe book, unless said recipe has been independently discussed in reliable sources. I don't think this delicious soup has done that, unfortunately. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced. Switched to Keep~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. erm, has anyone checked for sources? [1] 284 google news hits, [2] 634 on google books, [3] 73 on google scholar. We have a lot of stub articles about foods, that doesn't make it WP:NOT, foods are encyclopedic if they've been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Sticky Parkin 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And have you looked at any of those sources? Is there any information in any of them that would be relevant to an encyclopedia article? The news reports generally involve either a recipe for something containing macaroni, or a passing statement that someone ate something-and-macaroni-soup. The book hits are, unsurprisingly, almost universally recipe books. A large majority of the scholar hits seem to come in lists of food in phrases like "eating elbow macaroni, soup, or other foods...." hence not actually discussing "macaroni soup" at all; and when they do it seems to be in passing. To me this looks more like an example of why number of google hits is not necessarily a good indicator of notability. If you can make a decent article out of them I'd be interested to see it, but I certainly wouldn't want to try. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I do more specialised google and other searches, such as google books and scholar, which are very useful and full of WP:RS and academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky Parkin (talk • contribs)

I know, I still think there's a difference between passing mentions in reliable sources and actual articles about macaroni soup. But I think you've found enough that do class as the latter, well done. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now included twelve references, most of them are from google books, including historical and social, institutional uses of the soup. This includes its being included in Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. I hope you all take another look at the article, and realise it's now as notable as any other food for which we have a stub, in fact far more than many because of its historical use and discussion for social welfare purposes and so on. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Obvious Keep. Kudos to Sticky Parkin for making the article encyclopedia-worthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Good work. Vast improvement from the original form. Has reliable sources and has been verified to meet notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep Article seems to be in position for a successful rescue with the better referencing and stronger rewrite to make it beyond what I had listed in my original vote. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly sourced and meets the standards of WP:note, WP:V and WP:RS. No violation of WP:OR or WP:Not --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The reliable sources provided, a source from 1819 and a page in the New York Times, is a testament to the subject's notability. Passes WP:V and WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Version of 6 August 2008 properly sourced, readable, and no different in style from scores of other food articles in Wiki. Absolutely no reason to single out this one for deletion. --Zlerman (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow now since it has been expanded it might be useful!--EZ1234 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (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.