Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barberton Chicken

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 no consensus, and I don't think transwiki to Wikibooks is appropriate -- Samir धर्म 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barberton Chicken

Very well written article about something completely not notable. At best, this is of local importance, and even then, it's just one restaurant's rendition of fried chicken. This is way below our ordinary notability standards. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One thing I think makes it clear here is a quick google search. Compare Barberton Chicken (1k) to Spaghetti (29m). If anything, it should be trans-wikied over to WikiBooks as a recipe and then deleted here. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. :)
• Transwiki per User:BradBeattie to wikibooks as recipie. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Good idea Brad; transwiki it. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Trnaswiki It seems like an awful waste to just delete this...--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there isn't much "recipe" about it, so Wikibooks probably wouldn't like it. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems notable and has references. Two are used in the article, which could perhaps be augmented by the external links that are listed. (I'm a little worried about the way the best looking source is reliant on Google cache, but I'll consider that a secondary issue.) Everyking 07:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above commenet that this is not exactly notable, and anyway Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Some chicken dishes which have gained wide renown may deserve an entry (e.g. chicken Kiev) but not this. Emeraude 09:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep References and has notability. Articles should not state their own notability. At what point do you think something like barberton chicken... which probably reaches a population over 100k people is not notable? Just because something is in the midwest or in a smaller geographic area, doesn't mean it is not notable, this is a keep on notability against WP:BIAS.--Buridan 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's the Midwest thing that got it nominated for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • comment well there does seem to be a bias against things that occur or effect smaller populations. it is part of the 'out of sight, out of mind' bias. --Buridan 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteHas far fewer references than other significant articles deleted here. NN. Edison 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Call me crazy, but deleting significant articles isn't really the point here. I mean, isn't this argument like, "We've deleted more notable articles than this, so bombs away"? Auto movil 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The first reference may be a bit dubious, but Attache magazine is a neutral source, providing verifiable information that this is a regional style of fried chicken. And although web forums are not considered a reliable source, Chowhound has discussions on this style of fried chicken. -- Whpq 23:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup - It seems notable based on some google searching, but in its current state it's a hard sell for me. Timbatron 05:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The notability of this is regional and unless there are reliable third party sources that deal with the chicken and not the recipe, this should be deleted or transwikied.
  • There is one already: the Attache article. Everyking 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ultramega Keep/Carefully Move - Well-written, factual, Googleable. If 'regional' implied 'non-notable,' the article on bagels would be imperiled. Auto movil 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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.