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) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey-roasted peanuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No need to be a seperate article. Minor variation of a food group and the article has no extra information. Fryedk (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why this can't be a separate page? The existing page is extremely large, and we already have boiled peanuts, list of peanut dishes, peanut butter etc. However I am not sure if the refs show notability for a separate page like the other articles. There is only one article provided (SFGate) that could be called significant (though that's dubious), most of the others are primary. If other editors improve it (wp:hey) I vote Keep, if not it is a Delete. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, this needs to be separate. For one thing, we need to understand whether this is the same as dry roasted peanuts which currently has no content. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was noting the lack of coverage of the latter. I am inclined to separate out peanut roasting as a separate article but don't know enough at this point to judge whether one article or three articles is a better approach. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Peanut-Food section and Honey Roasted peanut have a similar home recipe but not actually a commercial manufacturing description so you can't tell. I had a quick look on line but other than home recipes nothing. If the process is the same roasted peanuts would be a better name for the article. Just again need the refs.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV or move. Plenty of sources are available. Bearian (talk)
• Merge to either Peanut#Food or List of peanut dishes as appropriate. If a comparison between different types of roasted peanuts is planned or desired, creating a single roasted peanuts article (currently a redirect to peanut) is preferable to creating separate articles for each type of roasted peanut (to answer Mangoe's question). TompaDompa (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sources, the article used to be in this state before it was gutted during the AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, Valereee and Smirkybec are probably the best editors to improve this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won't !vote since I was pinged, but I did find a source for the history, plus a mention on the planter's website that may mean there's info out there. I've ordered a book on the history of the peanut from the library, I'll see if it has anything in it when it gets to my branch from the main. —valereee (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2021 (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.