Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nộm

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. This article has come a long way from the poor condition it was in when I nominated it, and it is now up to Wikipedia standards. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nộm

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

A non-notable salad. No sourcing to speak of. Fails WP:NOTABILITY Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sue, you need to check under the Southern Vietnamese spelling "goi" as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Sue. The same problem with failing to make checks on name variants, diacritic/non-diacritic, could have avoided the similar discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Đặng Trần Côn tags on Hằng Phương etc. I don't mind helpful suggestions but if suggestions aren't going to be helpful then maybe times spent improving your own sourcing on Hugh R. Sharp Moulton-Udell High School Moravia High School etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more constructive if we concentrated on THIS ARTICLE. If you believe any of my own articles are deletable material, feel free to nominate them. Merry Christmas.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in sufficient depth in Into the Vietnamese Kitchen: Treasured Foodways, Modern Flavors by Andrea Nguyen, among many others. Sue, what permutations of the article title did you search for before determining that this subject was not notable? VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced article, notability is clearly established. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is a major food category in a cuisine eaten by around 100 million people not notable? Go after chicken and waffles instead. — AjaxSmack 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "no sourcing to speak of" - except the 6 sources in the article, one of which was in the article when this was nominated. I had half a mind to speedy close this considering the speed at which it was sent to AfD and the bogus nomination rationale. Sending good faith, sourced contributions to AfD straightaway is bad practice and demotivating to people who create content. - filelake shoe  19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An early snow closure is probably reasonable in this case. VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will point out that at the time I nominated this article it only had a single, poor, source. I am happy that this AfD was able to motivate editors to improve it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 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.