Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipped beef on toast

Chipped beef on toast
This page should be transwikied to wikibooks, specifically to the cookbook. GeorgeStepanek\talk  03:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Although not much more can be said about it, this is not just a recipe. Any American GI for at least the last hundred years will instantly recognize it, and, love it or hate it, it was notable. Most of the time when my unit got a hot breakfast in the field, this was it. DialUp 05:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, recipes such are these are okay but not as an article in the main pedia. Megan1967 06:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It needs to be mentioned somewhere. Is there an article about military food in general, which would include SOS, C-rationss, and MRE, for example? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article (if one exists) on Military cooking, Military cuisine, Cooking of the military, Military rations, or Military food. And don't leave out Spam! --Calton 09:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we are: United States army rations --Calton 09:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have summarised the non-recipe info in United States army rations, and copied the recipe to wikibooks:Cookbook:Chipped beef on toast. GeorgeStepanek\talk  09:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To be technical, SOS is not part of the field rations. Field rations are provided where a field kitchen can't be set up. I suppose if there is a section on mess hall food it could go there. DialUp 15:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but the article is about rations in general, not just field rations, even though that appears to be its main focus at the moment. GeorgeStepanek\talk  19:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks. ComCat 09:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * transwiki as above, plus redirect to Calton's suggestion. Radiant! 09:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Dialup.  This has at least as much cultural as culinary significance.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but reduce significance of recipe - culturally significant and provides a destination for "shit on a shingle" which will inevitably be searched for. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Shit on a shingle itself was VfD'd and transwikied to wiktionary in Dec 2003: see Transwiki_log/Archive1. It is now a redirect. We can easily change that redirect to point to the wikibooks page. If it really is that culturally significant, then please take a minute to expand the article to explain its significance. But the recipe really has no place here: wikipedia doesn't do how-to's any more. GeorgeStepanek\talk  20:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * P. S. You are mistaken about how-tos. I've asked about this several times and as nearly as I can tell, this is a repeatedly asserted misconception. See How-to, which still exist and still appears to be policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "I think [the how-tos] are all going to be moved, and [ How-to ] will be here until they are all gone. It serves as a useful place to find the lists in order to move them, but it isn't really a valid page anymore." (Angela Feb 23, 2004) My understanding is that while how-tos still exist on Wikipedia, they should be progressively migrated to wikibooks. GeorgeStepanek\talk  04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I have heard conflicting things. I don't have a strong position on this personally, but I wish we would make up our collective minds. I don't care that much which way it is, but I'd like the codified, published policy to align with whatever we actually say and do, or vice versa. I tried to clarify this last year by nominating Wikibooks for VfD on the basis of being out of date. If you check the history, you will not only that the nomination failed, but that Improv's change to read "Wikipedia articles should not be How-tos, but may provide historical context and further information on the content of the How-to. Howtos may be placed on Wikibooks instead" was reverted. That was in November 2004, so it seems to me that as of November, the current text of How-to has been reaffirmed to be current policy. And it says nothing there about gradual migration to Wikibooks. This is probably a persistent no-consensus, must-agree-to-disagree state. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: cultural significance. Article is fine as it is. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has cultural significance. The recipe, being from a 1910 Army cookbook, is historical. This is not an article consisting of a recipe, particularly not a recipe you'd find in an ordinary cookbook. This is an article about an American food, with the recipe in fact serving to define the food and amplify the article. The article could certainly benefit from expansion but is OK as it stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've just added a couple of quotations (one Army, one Navy) intended to indicate that creamed chipped beef on toast is culturally significant and emblematic of military life in the U. S. Dpbsmith (talk) 04:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "The recipe, being from a 1910 Army cookbook, is historical"&mdash;is not a reason for keeping it in Wikipedia. See Don't include copies of primary sources. However, I accept that the article now justifies its existence, and I have withdrawn the VfD. GeorgeStepanek\talk  04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)