Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedictine (condiment)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benedictine (condiment)

Benedictine (condiment) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete-Not Notable--DatDoo (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Completing malformed and incomplete nomination from another editor. Redfarmer (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid stub. Multiple G-hits establish coverage. In the process of adding references now. Redfarmer (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid stub, as Redfarmer says, and I just gave it a much better reference. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a recipe published in a newspaper is not enough for notability.DGG (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you read the references? The recipe is an external link to the Washington Post-which does not establish notability in itself but does establish coverage outside the Louisville area. The reference is to an encyclopedia of Louisville history and there's more references where that came from, do a Gsearch. Redfarmer (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it is a valid stub as well. Having lived in Louisville I can vouch that it is quite common there (can be purchased in any grocery store). Biomedeng (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Looks OK to me, would be better with more citations and expansion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It exists, it's well known in at least one place, why shouldn't WP have an entry for it? -- Zsero (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and verifiable per Redfarmer. --BelovedFreak 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If I voted for this to go, on the grounds that it's only notable in one place, then I'd have to get rid of Henderson's Relish. And that's not on! On a more serious note, passes notability criteria, so deserves to remain. gb (t, c) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (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.