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The result was withdrawn. notability and verifiability concerns addressed. seresin ( ¡? )  04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch woodcock

[edit]
Scotch woodcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing to indicate this is a notable savory dish. In addition, it remains unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep- it only has 2500 mentions in newspapers [1] , 724 in books [2] and 938 in scholarly works.:) [3]. We have many, many food stubs such as Macaroni soup and Cheese pudding and thhe hundreds of others. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that it's an acceptable type of article. I could find sources, maybe I'll put some in, but I spent hours working on the two articles mentioned because no-one else bothered. Why do people want to bring foods to AfD, especially when they haven't even looked to see if WP:RS existed themselves, as for this there are hundreds, or (shock) add a reference themselves? Do I have to spend hours on a food stub again like I did on the two I mentioned? It's not very exciting you know- maybe people could try it instead of bringing these to AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these references seem to be to othher things but this is a historical dish, with hundreds of years of use, similar to Welsh rarebit. Sticky Parkin 18:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -I have now added eight references to the article, including ones from the New York Times, the New Statesman and the British Medical Journal. Sticky Parkin 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd heard of this?:) Sticky Parkin 23:50, 14 September 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.
More