Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoked salmon cheesecake

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 no consensus. Secret ^account 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked salmon cheesecake

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

Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.

De-prodded with the reason "I disagree, the program cited shows the dish is locally well known."; but being locally well known is not enough for notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image search throws up thousands of images, which by itself indicates some notability. Most of these images seem consistent with the article to me. Just because some are big cheesecakes and some are small doesn't indicate a contradiction. Did you search on the term "smoked salmon cheesecake" in quotes, or were you searching without quotes, on the individual terms smoked, salmon, and cheesecake? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This dish is locally well known in Scotland, and apparently also Canada. Even seems to be available in the US. There was much more than a brief mention on the TV program, it was a major segment of the cited episode and was covered in depth. I note that the nominator is still pointing to the inappropriate image, but has cut from the quote of my reason for challenging the prod that I agree the it is a bad image and does not represent the dish. This might be grounds for removing the image, but it is not grounds for deleting the article. Spinning Spark 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough sources are available about this topic to support an article. A cursory search has revealed sources that are beyond recipe listings. Some are paywalled, so the depth of coverage in those is difficult to ascertain: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Meets WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That just looks like a list of search results. The ones I looked at are recipes. I don't see any that provide significant coverage of the topic beyond that. WP doesn't have a policy on recipes but then it doesn't need one: the content of recipes can't be copyrighted so they are widely reproduced with minor variations in many publications, especially now in web encyclopaedias. For a recipe/food to be notable it needs significant in-depth coverage other than in recipes. If it's e.g. a significant regional dish it should be easy to establish this from sources. But the local site in the references doesn't mention it at all.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Garden of Skye Smokehouse website does talk about the dish on this page. Spinning Spark 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a comment thread and all they say is Please contact us at "info@gardenofskyesmokehouse.co.uk" and we will be happy to send you a price list with details of how to order, etc.. Not a reliable source or in-depth coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't say it was, just countering the assertion that the site does not mention the dish. Spinning Spark 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - recipes do not establish notability. The provided sources are not about the item but just show it exists. Notability has not been established. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly notable. Discussed, for example, in 85 books according to Google Books, including the iconic Betty Crocker Cookbook and other publications such as 1001 Recipes: Ultimate Cookery Book, Prizewinning Recipes: 200 of the Best Dishes, Red, White & Blue Ribbon: Winning Recipes and The Best of New Wave Cooking.
Delete - Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The classic opening line is worthy of repetition: "Smoked salmon cheesecake is a savoury cheesecake containing smoked salmon." Well, that explains everything, does it not? Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikibooks:Cookbook, per JohnBlackburne. While many recipes and images exist, there don't seem to be other sources about the dish to demonstrate notability; the TV-show source discusses the program itself, not the article's subject. Miniapolis 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Foods and dishes (recipes) can be encyclopedic. But there needs to be something other than appearance in a number of recipe books or mention in a television programme. Cultural or historic importance would be examples, whilst the fact that some people liked the taste generally not. I have not seen anything here to persuade me that this passes the test. --AJHingston (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, perhaps a merge to cheesecake would be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several editors have given "Wikipedia is not a cookbook/recipe book" as the deletion rationale. Actually, there is no recipe given in the article for that very reason. There seems to be some knee-jerk reaction against food articles going on here. And the idea that a recipe book cannot be a reliable source for a food article is quite baffling - that is just the place one would expect to find reliable information about a food dish. As for notability, it has been said that appearance in recipe books does not establish notability. If only in one or two isolated books maybe, but if it is found in numerous books it does show just that: that is how we define notability. Spinning Spark 07:45, 17 February 2013 (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.