Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cup of beans


 * 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 Merge and redirect. The article has been re-directed to Baked beans, and a brief mention of "Cup of beans" made in that article. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cup of beans

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy deletion. Tagged as patent nonsense, which it isn't, but it appears to be a recipe. No vote. Chick Bowen 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I nominated this page for speedy deletion - apologies if I nominated it under the wrong head. The page author is User:CupOBeans - the page's content doesn't serve to do anything other than reflect the user's name. Please see my post on the article's talk page; the article's assertion that it's a wide-spread British term is not backed up by a Google UK search (nor by personal experience, but I know that doesn't count!) and the only reference to it I could find online is from an Alan Partridge episode (which the author also cites). It's a vanity page, it's non-encyclopaedic, and it's not accurate or backed up by references. Squeezeweasel 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it cannot be referenced it certainly should be deleted, yes. Chick Bowen 18:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see further comment on article's talk page and this Google search for reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CupOBeans (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete - Surely WP:NFT?! The Rambling Man 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man - if you would care to check the above link to references online: I can assure you that I did not go to school with every single author of the 372 web pages listed as results in the Google search. Your use of WP:NFT as a reason for deletion is invalid. CupOBeans 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment no doubt. However, you must ascertain the notability of this phrase for it to remain with the Wikipedia.  You should seek out a number of verifiable reliable sources which give credence to its inclusion.  By all means modify the article to meet these requirements and I will be more than happy to re-appraise my opinion.  The Rambling Man 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited this article as requested documenting the known history of the phrase. The source I originally cited was a BBC website, and I have now added a link to a popular television program whose script incorporates the phrase. CupOBeans 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A gag from a British comedy show - too trivial in itself for its own article. Unverifiable as a real, significant practice. I've usually eaten my baked beans from a bowl. Should we have "Bowl of beans"? Bwithh 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed the phrase was used on a popular TV show in the UK. You are free to create Bowl of beans if this is your personal preferred method of serving the food. Cup of beans, however, documents a distinct method of food preparation. Your feeling that this is not a 'significant practice' because a small statistical proportion of the population utilises this method of serving beans, is not a valid argument for deletion.CupOBeans 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to create Bowl of beans because I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not "my feeling" that is in question here, its your responsibility to produce substantial, reliable, non-trivial sources Bwithh 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your view on what is trivial is not relevant. If you can show with irrevocable logic that the Deletion_policy demands the removal of this article I will not contest it any further.CupOBeans 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The policies and guidelines that are relevant to this deletion discussion are: WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a recipe book), WP:RS (you haven't provided any good references for this article) and WP:NOTE (this hasn't received non-trivial mentions in published works). The subject of this article is thus not worthy of an encyclopedia entry per these policies and guidelines (as Bowl of beans would be, if it was created).  Hut   8.5   21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTYou cannot use this as an argument for the deletion of this article as doing so would mean you would also need to recommend every other article on food preparation for deletion. This would be an immense task and greatly detract from the completeness of content on Wikipedia.
 * WP:RS I have provided two references of the use of the phrase cup of beans, one from a BBC website (which anyone would consider a reliable source) and the other shown in a video clip from a very popular television program. This is more than many other articles which cite only a single reference or none at all. I have also provided a link, in this discussion, to a Google search showing 300+ websites where various people have used the phrase to describe the dish detailed in Cup of beans.
 * WP:NOTE The second reference is a published work viewed by many thousands of individuals and the clip deals almost in entirety with the preparation and consumption of the dish.CupOBeans 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC reference is a trivial reference, and doesn't count. I don't consider that every phrase used in a TV programme should be given its own article, unless the gag itself is notable. We don't need articles covering every last line in every comedy show.
 * As for the recipe argument, articles such as Fish and chips do give examples of ways in which a dish can be served, but this article consists of very little else, and can therefore be considered a recipe. (Besides, Fish and chips is obviously well-known, whereas Cup of beans isn't.)
 * The fact that lots of people on the web use this isn't a good argument - they are using it to describe a cup filled with beans. If all the article said was "Cup of beans is used to describe a cup filled with beans", then the article meets the speedy deletion criteria.  Hut   8.5   17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neither recipes nor gags make good encyclopedia articles. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By your logic, Squiddy, we must also therefore delete the following articles and countless more: Toad in the hole, Cauliflower cheese, Bangers and mash, Fish and chips, Sushi, Hamburger. CupOBeans 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. Patently false - the Toad in the Hole article describes it as a traditional British dish, which it is and yours isn't, and doesn't give a recipe. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From Toad in the Hole: "consists of sausages in Yorkshire pudding batter, usually served with vegetables and gravy." This is as much of a recipe as that described in Cup of beans. Furthermore, you did not argue that Cup of beans should be deleted because it is a 'traditional' dish. Nowhere in the article is this stated and the status of any dish as being traditional or not would not be a criterion for deletion from Wikipedia anyway. Your remark that I had falsely made any claim is therefore completely unfounded and you have yet to support your original argument for the deletion of this article with any kind of logic. CupOBeans 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this subject doesn't need its own article. A trivial mention in a comedy programme hardly confers notability, and Wikipedia is not a recipe book.  Hut   8.5   20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion on whether or not any subject needs an article, but that is not an argument supporting the deletion of this article. If you refer to the search link given above, you will find numerous websites where a multitude of people have used the phrase cup of beans to describe this dish. Agreed that Wikipedia is not a recipe book, it is an encyclopaedia that already contains a vast number of articles describing the methods of serving and preparation of various dishes. In order to avoid hypocrisy you will need to recommend all of these for deletion if you argue for the deletion of Cup of beans along these lines. You will need to use the Deletion_policy to prove this article requires removal from Wikipedia.CupOBeans 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't sound so patronising. Yes, Wikipedia articles do contains recipes outlining the preparation of food, but this article doesn't contain much else, except a trivial mention in a comedy show which obviously isn't notable.  Hut   8.5   18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and User:CupOBeans is not really helping his cause. Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:CupOBeans is trying to prevent the unwarranted deletion of an article from the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy and there is therefore no consensus by vote in these discussions; Dmz5 - you have not presented any kind of argument as to why you think this article should be removed - you have added nothing to this discussion by simply editing in the word 'delete'.CupOBeans 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I left out the phrase "per nom", which sums up my feelings.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Erase the bad original research (a one-pound can of beans does not fit in an 8 ounce coffee cup) merge what's left to Baked beans and I'm Alan Partridge, by itself the phrase is not notable enough for its own article. BTW, the burden of proof is on the author to show why this should be included, not up to the other editors to prove why it shouldn't. Tubezone 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Baked beans' by the articles own submission, the recipe is only baked beans Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - May not be an american concept. Sounds similar to an article on Mashed potato, or some other food item that is served in a restaurant.  Does not appear to be an advert and has a reference to a pop culture reference in a television show.  I do not think this article is hurting wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another similar style article is the article on Fish and chips. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Fish and chips article is properly sourced. It's a documented traditional dish with documented regional variations, and a documented history. While its style could do with a cleanup (I'm on it), Fish and chips passes WP:NOTE with flying colours. The article we're discussing here does not. -- Squeezeweasel talk  17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it has been disputed that inclusion in the british television show satifies wikipedias notability guidelines, but I think that it does. It may not be a concept familiar but does not mean it is valid.  Perhaps a cleanup or some other tag may have been appropriate.  The articles current writing does not read like a recipie to me.  If i wanted to have a "cup of beans" for dinner, if there are any specifics to it this articles does not provide them.  It explains where it is used in television hence it asserts notability.  And, i feel it may be on the line of notability, and in the case i would rather err on the side of caution and let this article be here.  In the future, when somebody watching that television show wonders what a cup of beans might be, this article could provide a little more insight into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait. The usage on the television show hardly confers notability.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't a catchphrase was it?  Did someone order and eat a cup o' beans every episode?  If that's the case, then I am open to keeping this.  But if you are watching a rerun of The King of Queens and somebody orders "a plate of spaghetti", you can't then go on wikipedia, create an article called A Plate of Spaghetti, explain how to "make" it, and cite the TV reference as a source.  -- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says this phrase only turned up once, in one episode of I'm Alan Partridge, it doesn't even turn up in synopsises on the episode that I can find. It's not repeated into a popular catchphrase (like Yada Yada or Soup Nazi), nor has the sketch or episode become famous on its own (like the Dead Parrot Sketch, which this AfD is increasingly beginning to resemble). At best, due to whatever little notability the association with Alan Partridge bestows on it, this should be a redirect, like Bender's catchphrase Bite my shiny metal ass. Tubezone 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A sympathy vote!!! --Boris Johnson VC 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Baked Beans Considering the entire recipe is baked beans, maybe add a section to the baked beans article mentioning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwym (talk • contribs)
 * A redirect was exactly what I was going to suggest. I second that notion, and am about to boldly go and do it. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:09, 17 January 2007 (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.