Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Cooked Chips

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Cooked Chips[edit]

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

In fact unsourced promo. No independent, reliable sources to prove that it is really the creation of Heston Blumenthal. The Banner talk 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read full article, unfortunately I didn't find any reliable source to back up the notability of subject. Hence non-notable A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is easy to find sources which testify to the notability of the topic. For example, 'Triple cooked chips' of celebrity chefs blamed for surge in chip pan fires. And the article contains a clear citation of The Times, which is a journal of record, in support of Blumenthal's claim. The editors above don't seem to have read the article with sufficient care and attention and so the nomination should be dismissed immediately. Andrew (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this is not the first time I see hasty statements from you in AfDs, and again it is related to the concept of "speedy keep". I strongly suggest that you read WP:Speedy keep, since you invoke it so often--and if you do, you will see that you really only have one, maybe two options: either you're going to claim that The Banner is a banned editor, or they're a vandal. No matter what The Times verifies, this is not a case for speedy keep. In addition, it's relatively easy to find citations that mention the supposed inventor and his fries, but whether, as the nominator claims, the newspaper and Google Books hits (many of which from fairly unreliable publications) actually prove the invention, that's another matter. From what I can tell it's a fairly unspecific claim repeated uncritically and all over the place. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant clause of WP:SK is 2e which states, "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". My !vote was initially a Keep but I upgraded it to Speedy Keep when I found the text of the article included a quotation from The Times in support of Blumenthal's claim. The nomination statement that there are no sources in support of the claim is therefore erroneous. In any case, the issue is too minor to warrant a deletion nomination because triple-cooked chips obviously exist as a culinary phenomenom and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as tagging the article for improvement or discussion on its talk page. Such nominations ought to be tossed out immediately per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not properly read the nomination. The Banner talk 09:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies In browsing sources for the topic, I came across a reference to thrice-cooked bacon! That's in New York but I'm thinking that, when Wikimania comes to London in August, we should arrange some meals for food-project members. A good local place to get triple-cooked chips, for example, is Hawksmoor... Andrew (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether these chips should stay or go, but whoever took that foodporn photo of them is worth their money in bacon. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reliable sources are not hard to come by. A search on Google Books gets you pages and pages of relevant results. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but those sources are still not reliable to judge notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 05:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is easy to find more sources, as noted above. For example:

The quest for the perfect chip
French fries: Holy Grail of cooking
Triple-cooked chips, by Heston Blumenthal
Matt Moran makes Heston Blumenthal's triple-cooked chips
Hot chips: the 50 best chips in London

Andrew (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - These are convincing references: if the Sunday Times says "Arguably his most influential culinary innovation is triple-cooking the humble chip", it's hard to argue that it's not his invention. This doesn't mean it qualifies as speedy keep: at the most you could argue that Banner's "BEFORE" wasn't so great. Andrew, I'm quite serious about this point and I urge you to exercise more good faith. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It still does not say that he invented it. Somebody else might have come with the idea, after which Blumenthal perfected it. But perfecting something does not mean that you are the creator. But the article has now Blumenthal-related sources and a passing mention with a recipe. The Banner talk 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of good sources to pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found to prove its notability. Dream Focus 09:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Questions of who created it are independent from notability, and are a matter for article talk page debates, edit wars, etc. There are plenty of sources indicating this is a notable foodstuff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received adequate coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 18 June 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.