Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit pie

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. Wifione ^Message 08:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit pie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition (see WP:DICDEF). Sole reference is a Google search link. Possibly this would be a useful redirect to Game pie. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Game pie. It's a pie filled with wabbit. What more is there to say? Also Afd Chicken pie and Fish pie. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game pie unless more substantial material can be found and referenced. Meelar (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTFINISHED. This is an adequate stub article for now. I find it impossible to believe that the nominator actually looked for coverage about rabbit pies, and came up with nothing. His nomination reason is inaccurate too - the article already had more detail than would be considered a dictionary definition, and did have what can be classed as a reference over and above the bizarre Google search link (the fact the creator called it an External Link is irrelevant). So already, it's clearly not an unverifiable hoax topic is it? Combined with the fact that this article's existence probably only came to the nominator's attention for completely unrelated reasons to the topic, I can't see how this deletion proposal can possibly be entertained. There's no case for a redirect either (which isn't a matter for deletion anyway), which just makes it less likely that someone will improve the article if they find it while actually looking for it. I've wikilinked game pie in the first line, which is sufficient for navigation purposes. JoolsRun (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silly rabbit, redirecting is a perfectly valid result for an AfD. I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia Review is in any way relevant to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game pie. I don't see enough material in reliable sources to justify a standalone article at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to game pie - or as I am reminded of such here - Duck pie, quack quack - You really can 00:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for references added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per coverage in reliable, tertiary book sources. I added these to the article:

Albala, Ken; et al. (2010). The lost art of real cooking : rediscovering the pleasures of traditional food, one recipe at a time. New York: Penguin Group. ISBN 9780399535888. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
Gates, Stefan (2005). Gastronaut : adventures in food for the romantic, the foolhardy, and the brave. Orlando: Harcourt. pp. 123–124. ISBN 0156030977. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
(Coverage from 1888)— Knapp, Louisa, ed. (May 1888). "The Practical Housekeeper". Volumes 5-6. Ladies' home journal and practical housekeeper. Retrieved January 20, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the text of the first two books that is viewable online has no mention of rabbit pie. If you own or can access those two books, could you possibly include page numbers and more information about what exactly about rabbit pie is mentioned? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the first link, scroll down. There are no page numbers on these pages. The second link reads just fine on my browser. The page numbers are already listed in the reference above. I'm unable to copy/paste from this webpage. Nice work improving the article! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still not seeing it. And the person who coined the term "gastropub" must have never worked in a commercial kitchen; just like the trope "you don't want to know how sausages are made"... ah, but I digress.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough refs to pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Anna Frodesiak. Subject appropriate for a standalone article. See, e.g. Key lime pie and Apple pie, which, it could be argued, belong in a grand, unified 'Fruit pie' article. Yet they are also appropriately standalone. (Excuse me while I venture out for a slice or two – all this pie talk is making me hungry.) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a bad comparison, since one can find literally thousands time more reliable sources for Apple pie and Key Lime pie than one can find for Rabbit pie. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many of the references in this article are actually about the subject. If the article on Wikipedia Review can be kept even though it only receives trivial passing mentions in articles about other topics, then this ought to be kept as well. The references provided clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Night Ranger (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can tell me what Wikipedia Review has to do with rabbit pie, since you are the second person to mention it in this AfD? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person who started this article also nominated the WR article for deletion. Also, based entirely on references, the ones in this article (as I mentioned in my keep rationale) cover rabbit pie more thoroughly than the references in the WR article cover that. Night Ranger (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. The assertion about a proverb about rabbit pie (or rabbit stew) may well be germane to some current events.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2012 (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.