Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverside

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 of the debate was not delete. Exactly what happens to this article (with what title) can be decided on its talk page. Petros471 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silverside

Looks like nonsense/original research to me. Never heard of that expression. One man's article. Mariano(t/c) 11:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Looked like original research to me at the time too. DarthVader 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You can buy silverside from any half-decent butcher. Google search "silverside beef" if you don't believe me. -- GWO
• Strong keep - nom and delete voters please check. Siverside is a common cut of beef. Corned silverside is used for corned beef ( cooked at home ). Perhaps a non-cross cultural term ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're right; it's not cross-cultural. I suspect the term has little use in the US. I've never heard it. Google seems to return primarily Australian and British sites. Fan1967 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Its a valid article. Dev920 13:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. There certainly is a cut of beef called silverside. However, the article currently called 'silverside (fish)' but originally 'silverside' was here first, but renamed to make way for this (beef) article. A look at the two 'what links here' pages suggests that the fish article was renamed rather sloppily. Mr Stephen 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to Beef#Primal_cuts, or create a daughter article called Cuts of beef linked to Beef#Primal_cuts, discussing the merits of each cut.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm sorry if I proposed for deletion a valid article, but I prefer to bing attention to the article rather than leaving an orphan one. Besides, I'm not that sure this is encyclopedic, even if not a hoax. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 14:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have a stronger case if you show evidence of even the slightest bit of preliminary research before AfD'ing something. -- GWO

• Keep but Rename Per Mr Stephen. Let the fish have this title back, with a DAB to the beef article at the top. Fan1967 17:15, 12 June 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.