Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulligatawny

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 Definite Keep. Slartibartfast (1992) 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mulligatawny

Mulligatawny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has no references to prove its notability. I have an opinion that could only be called a weak delete, but it is still a doubt of whether Wikipedia should include it. I've opened this discussion to see whether any doubts as to its notability are confirmed or not. Slartibartfast (1992) 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources: Here, here, here, here. It was also featured in the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" episode. A quick search is recommended before putting things up for deletion. Thomjakobsen 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Having checked out the article talk page, would I be right in saying it's put up for AfD because they wouldn't let you keep the Seinfeld reference? Thomjakobsen 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the talk page after Thomjakobsen's comment, I think Thom may well have hit the nail on the head. Sounds like a good reason to close this discussion early before anyone else's time is wasted, as I now feel mine was. Even sounds like a possible WP:POINT violation. Noroton 23:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. Please don't accuse me of doing this just to settle a point. Now that you mention it, that may be an unconcious motivation for this, but my primary motivation was that I sincerely had doubts. If you believe that you should close this prematuraly, however, please do. Now that I think of it, that may be the best option. You are perfectly right in supposing it may have influenced me though. --Slartibartfast (1992) 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep' Not only is it notable, as a simple Google search shows, but it was so notable in 1955 that someone from The Hartford Courant used it as a metaphor (which indicates the author thought just about everybody would understand the reference): There are three new, spicy additions to The Political mulligatawny in recent days: President Truman's pointed endorsement of Governor Harriman: Governor ...October 11, 1955 Noroton 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Thomjakobsen. We have at least 147 articles about kinds of soup. This is clearly a kind of soup. As Thom mentions, this soup was mentioned in a specific and humorous fashion in the legendary Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld. Thus it is probably actually one of the more "notable soups" out there by our standards, though I sincerely hope that no one has taken (and will never take) the time to write up a specific notability page for soups. I don't think we're that bored yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SOUP! j/k. But, this is clearly a notable soup, appearing in many cookbooks and magazines in many variations. I was surprised to see articles on it in the NY Times and Jerusalem Post, to name two.--Sethacus 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Wow, my doubts have definitely been destroyed. Think it's OK if I just close this as keep right now? --Slartibartfast (1992) 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Definitely no soup for you! Thomjakobsen 23:42, 23 September 2007 (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.