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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bezgovo cvrtje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

violates WP:HOWTO as Wikipedia isn't a recipe guide. It has no claim to any notability and is not encyclopedic Tavix (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, it's a stub, but there's no recipe there and there never has been. If there was a transwikification to wikibooks would've been more appropriate. -Mgm|^(talk) 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Short and to the point, but needs to be verified and expanded not deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A quick search indicates it is real and notable as an example of Slovenian cuisine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs to be better sourced or deleted. Unreliable as is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article had barely existed for two hours before it was prodded for the same reasons as above, plus it was "almost incomprehensible". I tried to fix the language, added a ref, and now it is precisely one of those stubs that may eventually grow, just like so many other Wiki articles have done (provided of course, it is not deleted).

  It's a national dish, wouldn't that be enough "claim to notability"? (I'm the sure the article creator has no knowledge of this wiki-speak).

  "Wikipedia isn't a recipe guide" - I don't see a recipe.

  "not encyclopedic" - here the nom leaves me in the dark, I think the real reason is IDONTLIKEIT, or should also Mavželj, the rest of Category:Slovenian cuisine, and yes Coleslaw and why not the rest of Category:American cuisine.

  Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your "reference" was a mirror of a Wikipedia article, note. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? Take a look at it again. Bezgovo cvrtje is listed as a vegetarian dish, that's all. A robot would not be able to extract that info from the Wiki article, the English was "almost incomprehensible". I found it credible, that "Bezgovo cvrtje" actually existed, not something WP:MADEUP. More references would certainly be desirable. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure. It explicitly says so, twice. Read it. It's a mirror of Slovenian cuisine, whose mention of this purported dish was simply a translation of the article in the Slovenian Wikipedia (sl:Slovenska kuhinja), an article that itself has since been deleted in fact, and which presumably thus wasn't based upon sources either. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should have been more careful there, thanks for pointing it out. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It was created on the 6th, it is now the 14th, and it is still 1 sentence that looks like a recipe book excerpt. If the author was serious about expanding this article and making a claim of significance, it should have happened already. There has been more then adequate time. --Pstanton 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • Calling it a national dish is a claim of significance. You seem to be reading different recipe books than I do, because that's not the sort of language a recipe book would use, anyway your view doesn't stroke with WP:DEADLINE. Who says it needs to be fixed immediately or even by the same author? There are no policies or guidelines to that effect. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there are policies on verifiability. And when this came up on Proposed Deletion, I looked for sources. All that I could find was that "bezgovo cvrtje" means fried elder. I couldn't find a source documenting this as a national dish, or even as anything other than simply being frying as one way of cooking the plant. Even the Slovenian Wikipedia wasn't any help. Apparently sl:Črni bezeg can be sl:cvrenje, and that's it.

      I don't currently see how we can ever get beyond a 1-sentence permastub that essentially repeats its title, telling the reader, in translation, that "fried elder is elder that has been fried". Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested help at the Slovenian wiki sl:Pogovor:Črni bezeg, the answer given is:

It is a traditional Slovenian food. There is a mistake - there are fried elder flowers (not berries). --Pinky 17:43, 18. januar 2009 (CET) Power.corrupts (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per most everyone. Doen't look anything like a recipe. Edward321 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it can be reliable verified that this is infact a "national dish". Otherwise del-eat. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has become clear to me that this article is wholly unreliable. We can bring it back if sources can ever be found. PROPER sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see how this will ever amount to an article in and of itself with the HOWTO parts removed. If reliable sources can be found then perhaps merge the stub into Culture of Slovenia. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:01, 19 January 2009 (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.